Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 446

Copyright Issue
The text below appears on the logo page when the logo is 'clicked on'. the description is exactly the same as the other photos on the Wiki entry and this message does not appear for them. The logo was created by Roger Hansell using a photograph of an original drawing by Roger Hansell. How can we resolve this. The entry is in draft format at the moment. Thanks.

'This media file is missing essential source information. The author and source of the file must be given, so that others can verify the copyright status. Edit the file description page to add source information.

Unless this issue is resolved, the file will be deleted seven days after this tag was added (21 January 2016).

Usage of this tag: For categorisation purposes, always use. If you didn't use an automated tool, notify the uploader manually.' Stuartlindsaymorle (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . That notice has been added to commons:File:Hansell Violins Ltd.pdf, the page in Commons where you uploaded the file. Commons is a separate project from Wikipedia, and you really need to be asking there. But if you look at the text of the message, you will see that "source information" is a wikilink, and if you pick it it will take you to commons:Commons:Essential information, which begins "In order to make sure that the claimed copyright status is accurate, the file description page needs to mention not only who generated the file/ image (which should already have been provided in the author= field) but where the file in question came from."
 * I also observe that you have asserted in uploading it that you are the copyright holder of the work, and that you have irrevocably licensed it under CC-BY-SA 4.0, which allows anybody to use or alter it for any purpose, including commercial: is that really what you intended?
 * Usually, owners of logos do not choose to license their logos under such a licence, and so they are used in Wikipedia only under the WP:non-free content criteria, in which case they are uploaded to Wikipedia, not to commons, and may be used only in articles, not in drafts. Please see WP:LOGO. --ColinFine (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , I am concerned that on the upload you said that the logo was your "own work", but here you say it is the work of Roger Hansell. Which is correct? —teb728 t c 22:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , you should probably remove the email address from your user page – it looks a bit like self-promotion to have it there, and it may reveal personal information about you. If you want to, you can ask to have it hidden in the history of that page so that people can't see it even if they look through old versions. Ask here if you need help with that.
 * Please be aware that if you have a close personal or professional connection with Roger Hansell, you should not be writing about him here – you have what we call a conflict of interest (click the blue link to read about that). There are plenty of other topics that you could work on instead. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello and thank you for your criticisms and suggestions. Roger is indeed a friend of mine. However, I reject the notion that I could stand to benefit in some way from creating this page about him. I am not involved in the violin-making business, nor am I a musician. Roger is virtually immobile due to multiple sclerosis. Only someone close to Roger would ever be able to create a Wikipedia page about him. I have had to interview him and take notes about his life and profession as he remembers things. This can be a slow and laborious process, which is also made more difficult by the fact that we do not live near to one another. He and his employees have compiled some images which we have uploaded to the page. We apologise for getting things a little muddled and we'll try to remedy the situation as soon as possible. Roger is the creator of the logo, so I suppose the copyright is his and not mine.

Re my email address being visible, it is certainly not for self promotion. How would that be possible? I was unaware that it could be hidden, so perhaps someone can help me to do that. Stuartlindsaymorle (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . When we talk about Conflict of interest in Wikipedia, this is not about whether anybody stands to gain personally: it is about whether material in Wikipedia is properly neutral. If Roger Hansell, or Hansell Violins, have been the subject of significant material by people independent of them and published in reliable sources, then they are (in Wikipedia's terms) notable, and we can have an article about them - which should be based close to 100% on what these independent sources have published (and because of your conflict of interest, in Wikipedia's sense, you are discouraged from writing that article). If they have not, then trying to publish an article about them is, almost by definition, promotion, and not allowed on Wikipedia.
 * Because of Wikipedia's prominence on the web and in Google searches, many people think that it is a tool for promotion (in its widest sense - bringing something to the notice of the world, whether commercial or not). It is not that, it is an encyclopaedia, which records matters which have already been brought to the notice of the world. --ColinFine (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Editing a school's page as an employee
Hello - I'm new to all this and learning the hard way fast. I work at a school and and have made some edits to the school's page (added the new website address, added citations as requested from a flag and taken out swathes of marketing speak). Is this ok despite the COI? This has been now been flagged to me in the 'talk' section in a very friendly way but I would have thought that these sorts of amends which are trying to improve a bad situation would be acceptable. I don't want the page to get another flag because I'm going about things the wrong way. Can anyone advise? Nikkimarketing (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. You need to read the advice regarding conflict of interest and about paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The best way to deal with corrections to a page about an organization that employs you is to request the edits on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Emma Lovett
This question continues a discussion with the same name that appears as the second article in Archive_444.

My draft has been rejected for not having "significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (Emphasis in original.)

I have been using the benchmark that LittleRedBunny was notable enough to go live. In the original discussion,Maproom advised me that LRB's reference of Daily Mail made her page a more suitable page than Lovett's page. Lovett's page has since been revised to include Daily Mail as a reference. As a matter of fact, the Draft page, unedited from the last rejection (@3:43 pm UTC 1/27/16) contains six common independent references, each with approximate coverage of the subject. Granted, Lovett's draft uses a blog as a reference. But so does LRB's.

I find it difficult to believe that a two-time international award winner that is widely interviewed, featured on television, including HBO, and presented in sources such as Cosmopolitan UK, and telegraph, the one reference that has been accepted, is not notable. So the defect in my draft must be in my presentation.

Can anyone advise me? Gmw4313 (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You should not regard the LittleRedBunny as a benchmark. The existence of one article that should not have been accepted does not justify the creation of more such articles: see Other stuff exists. In fact, I have no view on whether either LittleRedBunny or Emma Lovett is notable. Maproom (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a common assumption among new editors that one existing article can be used as a model to get another article on a similar subject (e.g., person in similar work) accepted. The reviewers don't look at other articles, and the other articles may or may not have been appropriately accepted.  Can you find more third-party references to Lovett?  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes I do Robert McClenon. But most of them are merely duplicate coverage.  It seems like puffery to me.  Just to pile on  references.Gmw4313 (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, if the references all look similar and like puffery, Lovett may not be notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The reason that the assumption is so common is that new editors read the submission guidelines, (in my case) don't know what qualifies as "significant," (though you probably define it as best as is possible), so not knowing where else to turn, they reason, "What have they accepted for other pages?" In a manner of speaking, I feel like I am golfing at midnight.  I can't see the green, I'm just taking shots, and listening for where the ball lands.  Am I two articles short of acceptance?  (I know you can't answer that.)  Would the page be more acceptable if I kept the references as they are, but stripped out all the material supported only by IMDb?  (That one you can answer.)


 * I agree that one bad article does not justify another. But in fairness to the new editors, I wouldn't have begun work on this page had I perceived that were the so-called Benchmark page would not be acceptable today.  I found the page, I perceived that I could write a better page about Lovett.  And I think I did.


 * One more comment: I am not as annoyed as this comment may sound. I think the previous rejections have launched the Draft page to a better quality page.  And I am confident that the page will ultimately be published.Gmw4313 (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand that the AFC process is frustrating, and that it is not easy to know what is notable. However, thank you for using AFC anyway.  The alternative is to create the article in article space (mainspace), in which case it may be nominated for deletion.  AFD (Articles for Deletion) is even more painful than AFC.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I might be wrong, Gmw4313, but I don't think the LittleRedBunny article was started through the articles for creation process, so no judgement was made that it was notable enough to "go live", as you put it. It may well be nominated for deletion at some point, and then a judgement will be made on its notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding a picture in works profile
Hey I am working at a university and updating the text heavy webpages. I am wanting to change the layout of the Wiki site - such as adding pictures.

I have watched online tutorials - however I do not have the image edit tool. I only have nine tool options (such as bold, italics - also embed file and file link, but that's it).

My role is making technology enjoyable. I want our face (our website) to be simple and fun. :) Thanks, Jess Hawkesje21 (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Tea House. Before you go any further please read WP:COI, WP:PAID and WP:SPAM. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Adding to ukexpat's reply: If you are asking about Wikipedia's article about your university, it is not the university's website but Wikipedia's article, which is not controlled by the university. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; as such its function is to summarize what third party sources have written about a subject—which tends not to be simple and fun. If you want to be fun, you can do that on Facebook. —teb728 t c 21:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . I wonder if you are working on the university's website (you write "our website"), but why would that be a Wiki?  Does the university not have a webmaster?  If you are wanting to change Wikipedia's page about your university, then please discuss any changes on the talk page of the article (or mention them here) before any changes are made.    D b f i r s   22:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

How to Publish a Draft?
Im in the process of completing my first wiki page. It is a bio of a living person.

Im wondering how I can go about publishing the draft as well as locking it to prevent unwanted edits.

FYI, the draft is not done yet, it needs a few more days of work, but it's getting very close so I figured I could as this question.

Thanks.

Riff.jdp (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse . When you draft is ready, add  to the top. But be sure you read WP:BLP first for the special requirements for bio of a living person.
 * As for locking an article, there is no such thing on Wikipedia: almost anyone can edit almost any page. Notice that at above every edit box it says, "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." —teb728 t c 09:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Draft:Dustin Farthing is a long way from ready. Blatantly promotional text such as "His flare and knack for self promotion made him a fan favorite" needs to be deleted. And evidence of notability appears weak: those references which I have been able to check either don't mention Farthing, or merely list him as the winner of a race, without discussion. Maproom (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Riff.jdp. Writing here is not like what many are used to. My recommendation is to first go through and brutally remove every promotional sounding statement, buzzword, superlative, etc. but then stop the prose writing process and concentrate all your time instead on finding and citing to reliable, secondary , independent sources that verify the content. Delete that which you can't find a source to support. Oh, and just a minor writing observation: While there are occasions where "would" works, for most simple past tense expressions where you use it, get rid of it and just make the word it modified past tense. You'll know where it actually worked if it sounds "wrong" without it. Examples (from the draft): would place → placed; would gain → gained; would employ → employed; would sign → signed; would pay → paid. The draft is just chock full of them. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I dont even know how to respond to each of your comments individually so I'll try to address everything in one post.

Im not trying to "lock" the page from editing. But I do notice that on Tom Brady's wiki page tgeir is a lock symbol. Did I misunderstand whatit meant?

Ive listed all the references available on the internet. Other than a stack of published watercraft magazines from the 90's Ithe sport doesnt have archives on the internet that I can reference. I can factually support all the claims on the article. How do I go about citing a magazine as a source that hasnt been archived on the net?

I will clean up the "woulds" and other errors of that nature.

Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riff.jdp (talk • contribs) 18:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The reason for the padlock symbol on Tom Brady is that the article was semi-protected because of persistent vandalism. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That lock icon will disappear from your view on 29 January, when you become an auto-confirmed editor, and you will be able to edit semi-protected articles. Most articles can be edited by anyone, but administrators can semi-protect articles due to persistent vandalism or can fully protect articles temporarily due to edit-warring.  The latter is done to force the editors to discuss rather than edit-warring, as an alternative to blocking the edit-warriors.  The former is generally more effective than blocking vandals from IP addresses, because IP addresses often shift.  When you get auto-confirmed in two days, you will be able to edit semi-protected articles.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised that you say the lock icon will disappear from his view. If that were the case, why can I see the lock icon? - David Biddulph (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The lock icon is always visible when the relevant template has been added to a fully protected or semi-protected page. An autoconfirmed editor can edit a semi-protected page, only admins can edit fully protected pages.--ukexpat (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Riff.jdp: Sources  do not need to be online , nor free to access, and many of the best sources for any given topic may not be – the majority of the world's knowledge is written down on paper. Good sources do need to be cited though, to demonstrate notability, verifiability and that the content is not original research. You cite print sources like you would an online source, leaving out the URL of course (and if using citation templates, don't provide accessdates). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Golden Independence
Rh2barb3 23:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Golden Independence is a obstacle for Flash Sentry.Rh2barb3 23:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rh2barb3 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi Rh2barb3. Can you explain a bit more about what brought you here? The sentence "Golden Independence is a obstacle for Flash Sentry" is hard to understand without context. Are you referring to two ponies from My Little Pony? If so, is there something on Wikipedia related to that topic that you want to discuss? Maybe some change to our article at List of mainline My Little Pony ponies?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Markup Mystery
I'm code-illiterate.

Every year I take all the correspondence from my talk page and collapse it by putting the collapse template in the last entry for the year. Sloppy, maybe, but that's the extent of my skills and it keeps things tidy on the surface.

When I tried to do this today, for some reason the 2014 section has jumped to the end of the list, ahead of 2015 and 2016. I have made an error somewhere in the markup, but I have been through it multiple times and can't find it.

Would someone who enjoys code mysteries like to take a look at the page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Whoosit

Thanks! Whoosit (stalk) 01:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. It wasn't an error in the markup you added.  The problem apparently arose from  from February 2014 from your mailing list.  It included the opening of a table but no closing of the table, so effectively everything since that on your talk page was treated as being within that table, which you could see by the style applied and everything sitting within the "March GOCE copyedit drive" heading.  I've corrected it in . --David Biddulph (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you David, and thanks for the step-by-step. I would never have figured it out. Must study more.... Whoosit (stalk) 06:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy delete
Hello, I'm a bit confused about the speedy delete process. If a tag is removed by an uninvolved editor and just put straight back on again by the nominator is that correct? As there doesn't seem any point in removing it, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The second tagging should be reverted. Once a speedy has been declined by an uninvolved user, the tag should not be replaced. If the original tagger still thinks it should be deleted, the next step is WP:PROD or WP:AFD.--ukexpat (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, could you check it out its WellchildAtlantic306 (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Correction WellChild Atlantic306 (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey Atlantic306. While generally removal by uninvolved people should result in a different process, as above, the problem here is that you stated your basis for removal of the tag as the subject being notable, which is entirely irrelevant to the basis it was tagged under (as having purely promotional content under CSD G11). Under that circumstance I agree with its replacement. I have deleted the article as an unambiguous copyright violation. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't realise it was copy-vioAtlantic306 (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I’m not familiar with the rule that and  allude to; can someone give me a reference? I know that you are not allowed to reassert a contested PROD, that it is considered forum-shopping to revert an admin who declines a speedy, and that G6 is only for uncontroversial deletions. But why shouldn’t you revert an anon or SPA who removes a speedy without a good reason? —teb728 t c 09:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I (and several other editors I have seen) do not WP:Assume good faith at that point, but assume it is the same editor, so continue re-instating the template until the page is deleted. IMHO the minimum requirement for template removal should be an autoconfirmed account. - Arjayay (talk) 10:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 33 Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 36 Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 32. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One difficulty is the phrasing of the notice "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." Article creators regularly ignore this, the notice is then re-instated, and the user warned for removing the notice from a page they created themselves - this cycle is often repeated, until an IP, or a newly registered account, removes the notice with their very first edit.
 * That says that the author may not remove a speedy, but my question is where does it say the converse: That if anyone but the author removes a speedy, the removal has to stick. WP:PROD says explicitly that a contested PROD may not be reasserted. Where does it say it for speedys? (If as I suspect there is no such rule, it would solve your problem with AGF.) —teb728 t c 10:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The nearest to such a statement is at Deletion policy, where it says: "Renominations: Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions, mentioned below, rather than being deleted."
 * - David Biddulph (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey teb728: There's also a version of the statement from the criteria regarding removal at Deletion policy (in addition to the quote above from that page, next to "If you disagree"). We are not of course, obligated to follow any "rule" blindly. If a user is removing tags willy-nilly, provides no explanation for removals, is on a campaign to remove speedies even where they provide explanations, is removing G12 tags from blatant copyvios or G10s from blatant attack pages, as in the OP removes a tag for an expressly irrelevant reason, or circumstances make it highly dubious and likely it is actually the creator's sock/a meatpuppet (etc.) do what you see fit. But be aware some users consider it not much different than a Prod removal if done by anyone other than the creator. These discussions may shed some light: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 43;
 * Thanks for that! That formulation – based on doubt of whether the page fits the criteria makes much more sense than a blanket prohibition. So even the author's objection might raise doubt, but no reason or a clueless reason (like maybe "g11 does not apply to educational institutions") does not raise doubt. —teb728 t c 10:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Jeanmichel.sellier - OR?
This is a very different question than I usually ask about AFC articles. User:Jeanmichel.sellier is a user page, but is designated as an AFC draft. User:Onel5969 reviewed it and declined it as original research. It was then resubmitted as is, with no changes, which I find to be tendentious, but I disagree as to whether it is original research. My interpretation is that isn’t original research, because it has multiple citations to published papers by Dr. Jean Michel Sellier in peer-reviewed journals, and a few papers by other researchers. It isn’t clear what the title of the article is supposed to be, and other improvements would be in order. However, my question is: Am I correct that Wikipedia may accept articles that rely primarily on peer-reviewed papers by a Wikipedia editor who is their author and a scientist?

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * When evaluating biographies of academics,, we take a different approach than we do with most other biographies, where we require significant reliable source coverage of the person as a person. In the special case of academics, we are looking (at least in part) for the influence of their research and ideas on the work of other academics, which is reflected in how often their research is cited by peer reviewed work published by others. As WP:ACADEMIC says, a person is considered notable if "the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account." There are formal tests for evaluating the influence of academics which should be carried out by editors with expertise in such evaluations. I am not among the editors with that expertise, so urge caution in carrying out those evaluations. Please keep in mind that one of the declared purposes of Articles for Creation is to allow new editors with a declared conflict of interest an acceptable venue to write drafts of potential articles, including autobiographies. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but this doesn't address my question. The article that I was commenting on is not a biography of Dr. Sellier, but was about the research of Dr. Sellier by Dr. Sellier.  I wasn't asking whether he meets academic notability guidelines.  I was focusing on a specific different question, whether his citing of his own papers is original research.  My argument is that it is not, because they were already published in peer-reviewed journals.  What his papers are, as was noted, is primary sources when he is using them.  The real question is not about his notability, but about the use of his peer-reviewed papers, which I do not see as original research.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeanmichel.sellier (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC) My intention was simply to put a page about the Signed Particle Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. But it seems that it was sumbitted as some sort of biography about me or something like that. The problem is that I honestly do not understand the Wikipedia platform very well, I find it very confusing. Therefore, could someone help me in the process of submitting the article in the correct way? I very honestly think that this new formulation of quantum mechanics should be on Wikipedia. This could help a whole community to access a new theory which has shown, in the last three years, to solve MANY of the problems around the topic of simulating/understanding quantum systems in intuitive terms. Many thanks to whoever is willing to help me (and Science ultimately)!


 * Hello, Jeanmichel.sellier. Most of the sources that you've cited in the draft are primary sources (i.e. your own published research). Are there secondary sources that have picked up on your work on this, and reported on it? That is really what we require here. See WP:PSTS for more on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * , it would help if you could add some peer-reviewed journals where your theory has been published, and articles about it that are not written by you. There do seem to be some more available, so, although your research is original, our article about it would not be original research. I'm not an expert on this, but is your theory a Phase space formulation?   D b f i r s   08:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeanmichel.sellier (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Hello Cordless Larry and  D b f i r s  , thanks for helping! I could add the following papers for instance: "On the relationship between the Wigner–Moyal approach and the quantum operator algebra of von Neumann", Journal of Computational Electronics, 2015, by B.J. Hiley who is one historical collaborator of David Bohm (i.e. an EXTREMELY big authority in the field is citing my work, that's why I am so surprised by the reviewers behavior towards my Wikipedia article) but also "Dissipative transport in superlattices within the Wigner function formalism", Journal of Computational Electronics, 2015, by O. Jonasson and I. Knezevic for a more applied (but authorative) source. But I could add other independent papers citing my work if necessary. The thing is that I do not know how to resubmit the whole thing properly at this point. This platform is difficult to understand honestly. To conclude, yes, my theory is a phase-space formulation of quantum mechanics (a new one). I tried a while ago to add some reference to the corresponding wiki page but was deleted almost immediately (I dont even remember why). This is honestly VERY frustrating since my only aim here is to share something useful with the community. Thanks A LOT in advance for helping me!

Jeanmichel.sellier (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Update: The User Theroadislong told me that I have a conflict of interests now.. Would someone try to submit my article independently? Thanks to whoever wants to help!


 * In my view (I studied physics at university, but not enough to understand the draft) the subject may well be worthy of an article, but the current draft should certainly not be submitted. Two of the things it lacks are
 * a lead section from which a non-specialist can gain some idea of what the article is about
 * references to publications independent of Sellier, showing that physicists take the theory seriously.
 * It will need someone with a good understanding of quantum physics and of Wikipedia policies to work on the draft. I suggest you ask at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics. Maproom (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeanmichel.sellier (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your very good advice Maproom. Unfortunately, once Wikipedia reviewers (see above) are telling me that I have a conflict of interests I am not sure I can do anything anymore. I hope someone will try to submit my theory anyway. In the meanwhile I will use technical journals as usual and forget about Wikipedia.


 * When I declined it, it was simply based on the fact that all but one of the current references is a primary source, hence the "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them" guideline in OR came into play. I suggested to that he go to the Math project for assistance in developing the article, since I certainly do not have the expertise to help, but the Physics project would be a more likely venue, as suggested by . Regarding the COI issue, it would probably help to have someone else at least work on the article with you. But COI does not preclude you from contributing to an article, simply means you have to let other editors know you have a potential COI, and that you have to be careful to maintain neutrality (which all editors should do anyway). Good luck!  Onel 5969  TT me 12:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeanmichel.sellier (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Many thanks  Onel 5969  for your answer. At this point, I am going to ask someone independent to resubmit this article (after some modification he/she would like to do). I hope it will work now. Sharing scientific theories is one of the most important things we have in this life, it helps us to have a better life. Hopefully, Wikipedia can be of great help from this perspective!

Jeanmichel.sellier (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Update. Someone decided to help me and resubmitted my draft with her personal modifications. You can find it here: Draft:The_Signed_Particle_Formulation_of_Quantum_Mechanics I hope it will work now.


 * I expect it to be rejected again. It still doesn't look good. It still doesn't start by explaining what it's about; most of the references are to your own work; five of the references and four of the "suggested reading" items have formatting errors. It needs work by a more experienced editor than Acadfandom. There's no hurry, and repeated submissions when it clearly isn't ready will annoy the reviewers, and may even result in a permanent ban on the subject. The second review said "The repeated submission of an article that has been declined without changes is tendentious", and now it has been submitted a third time without significant improvement. Maproom (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeanmichel.sellier (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC) With all due respect, in that case I will simply stop trying once for all. I and several colleagues of mine have been trying for months with no success. It seems that, paradoxically, it is much easier to publish a paper on a technical journal than on Wikipedia.
 * That is likely because journals publish original research whereas Wikipedia doesn't, Jeanmichel.sellier. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ... but once the journals have published the research, they become references. If they are reputable peer-reviewed journals, then they are good references.  It will also help if you can find articles that have been written about the published theory, especially ones that have some criticism since that would indicate that they are independent.  See Secondary source.    D b f i r s   21:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * However, before we add an academic theory to Wikipedia, we need to see that it has been taken up and discussed by the academic community (whether accepted by other academics or rejected – a rejected theory can still be notable). A simple rough measure of whether this has happened is provided by the number of cites recorded by Google Scholar. In the case of JM Sellier (2015) A signed particle formulation of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, published in the Journal of Computational Physics, the number of cites to date appears to be three. It is perhaps early days for this theory to have a page here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeanmichel.sellier (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Many thanks to all of you for these further comments! Let me add one thing though. It is true that the "Signed Particle Formulation" paper has been cited by only three independent papers (yet) but there are other things to take into account. First of all, three citations for a paper that was just published a few months ago is a quite nice achievement. Secondly, and most importantly, the method was actually started three years ago under the name of Wigner Monte Carlo method because, at that time, we thought it was simply a numerical method. It was only later that I personally understood it was an actual formulation of quantum mechanics. Therefore, taking this into account, one should check how many times the Wigner Monte Carlo method has been cited. You would be amazed (you just need to see the list of papers here ). This method/formulation has raised serious interest in the community. Thanks to it, I have been invited as a keynote speaker in many conferences around the world, not to mention that I have been invited in many countries to give series of lectures about the whole thing (it is perceived as a breakthrough). I am not saying it to "look cool" but because I seriously think there is a value in this theory that should be shared with the community as much as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.175.85.152 (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Jeanmichel.sellier. I don't think anyone is saying that three citations in a few months isn't impressive, but our task here isn't to make a judgement about that, but rather decide whether the research is "notable" in the sense that that is meant on Wikipedia and ensure that the material added to Wikipedia isn't original research. As long as all of the material is verified by what your journal articles say, then I think there is no problem with original research. However, I suggest you take a look at WP:Golden rule, which explains the notability issue. In order to demonstrate notability, you need to provide evidence that the research has received secondary coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeanmichel.sellier (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Last update: article rejected! Good thing I am good enough for the Scientific and the GNU community...

please some basic help
I am struggling with my first article, reg a serial social enteprenuer Zika Abzuk. Please: How do I designate it as a "draft"? How do I submit for review? I tried reading the guide articles, i got lost. I am a physician but non technical- I am a psychiatrist. Thanx Adam1955 (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Adam1955 welcome to Wikipedia. The Article wizard will help to get you started, but before you write anything please read the Your first article guide and then collect your sources. Having, and citing, independent reliable sources for all the content of the article is the most important factor for creating a successful article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * And my personal advice to any new editor,, is to get some experience improving existing articles before you ever embark on the difficult and sometimes frustrating task of trying to create a new one. --ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I am acting agent of the copyright holder of the work
Sofiaarangoe (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Hello Teahouse. I work for Paolo De Grandis, President of PDG Arte Communications and I have the task to write his history as art curator and organizer in wikipedia as Paolo De Grandis. I wrote the article with all information he told me and have all website and book references to support the story. I am new and I am having so trouble understanding the procedure, for I received the blatant copyright violation (eventough I wrote the article myself). I guess the problem is that I wrote also the articles on his website and so wikipedia thinks I am copying them, but it will be like copying myself. How do I proceed to prevent deletion? Thank youSofiaarangoe (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There is some advice on your talk page about paid editing and conflict of interest. You also need to be aware that text written for a promotional website is very unlikely to be suitable for an encyclopaedia article.  Google here in the UK seems to find mainly promotional material which is not appropriate for Wikipedia references, but there might just be sufficient in English to establish that the subject is notable in the Wikipedia sense.  As a last resort, you could cite some Italian newspapers.  I suggest that you start again, and write a shorter encyclopaedic article with every fact referenced rather than promotional wording suitable for a website.  You might also wish to enlist the help of someone whose native language is English to polish the grammar.  The Italian Wikipedia article needs some work to expand it.    D b f i r s   12:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I will proceed with the changes. Sofiaarangoe (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It might also help,, to understand that Wikipedia has almost no interest in what Paolo de Grandis says about himself: any article about him should be based nearly 100% on what people who have no connection with him have published about him. --ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Citing from conflicting references; avoiding absurd statements
I'm curious about whether there is a standard WP approach to dealing with citing reference information where multiple sources are in conflict.

This arose from my reading of the page on Graves' Disease: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graves%27_disease when the following statement in the intro caught my eye: About 25% to 80% of people with the condition develop eye problems.[1][3]

To my mind the statement sounds absurd. I am accustomed to such a use of "About ..." to indicate a range with a relatively low span, so I suspected a possible "typo". When I looked at the first reference given I indeed saw figures which supported my suspicion - essentially claiming a range of 25% to 35%. I was unable to locate any information in the second reference given so I edited the page.

The edit was promptly reverted and it was pointed out that the second reference indicates an affected rate of (more than) 80%. So this to me immediately raises these two questions:-

1) Whether the existence of the conflict should be noted (in the introduction) 2) Whether the wording of the statement is generally considered absurd or acceptable

To my mind the statement should either limit itself to information from a single source, e.g. "More than 80% of ...", or should be worded to reflect the conflict/uncertainty, e.g. "Anywhere from 25% to 80% of ... have been found to ..." (or "are believed to" etc.)

Wsierke (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Where the sources disagree so much, and assuming that both sources appear reliable, the article should certainly say explicitly that the different sources give different values (both cited, of course), and should not attempt to draw any conclusion or resolve the disagreement (unless, of course, it can cite another reliable source which does so). --ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

What's a plush pocket
A number of articles use this phrase without explanation. I used Google without success, so can anyone tell me what a plush pocket is. Wiki searches don't seem to help. Jodosma (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The only two articles I can find which include this phrase are Optical disc packaging and Runter mit den Spendierhosen, Unsichtbarer!. In both cases, the article talks about discs being packaged in a "plush pocket", with no further explanation although the latter article does have an image which may be helpful.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Hey Jodosma. I can only find two articles that use the phrase, Optical disc packaging and Runter mit den Spendierhosen, Unsichtbarer!, and in both cases it appear they are using it exactly as it reads by combining the meaning of the two words, i.e., to describe a pocket, that is in some manner plush—and not as some obscure but specific idiomatic expression you're not familiar with. You can see from the picture in the infobox at the latter article, for example, that the album sleeve is actually made of some velvety soft cloth. I do agree though that it has an odd ring to it; it feels non-standard. ( Gronk: when I edit conflicted with you at first I thought something weird was going on and I was reading my own post b/c the beginning at least is so similar!) --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . The information above about a style of packaging sounds plausible. In addition, I have seen the phrase used two other ways online: The first describes a small, soft, pocket sized toy stuffed animal or cartoon character. The second usage is as the commercial name for several billiard parlors. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Potential Page Creation
Hey there! I'm Josh, & I was wondering if a page I was thinking of creating would be a valid page on the encyclopaedia. The page will be called 'List of unusual excreta'. Despite the apparently inappropriate subject, I believe it is soundly written, as the draft I have created is approximately 2,300 words and inappropriateness is invalid, due to currently existing articles such as 'List of Toilet Related Injuries' and 'List of Unusual Deaths'. I can provide examples of items in the list if necessary. Thanks, JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . The fundamental issue is whether or not reliable sources devote significant coverage to the topic of "unusual excreta". How is "unusual" described in this context? If it is what you think is unusual, then that is what we call original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Just because we have some crappy articles which have not yet been deleted, does not mean we should create more crappy articles. All articles need to comply with our policies and guidelines. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

History of Wikipedia
Hello Wikipedia Teahouse I just want to know what came before Wikipedia? Was it Nupedia?Actionfilmlover (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Unsurprisingly, you can find a very good overview of Wikipedia's antecedents at History of Wikipedia. For a more in-depth account, you may want to read a book called The Wikipedia Revolution, by Andrew Lih, which covers Wikipedia's origins and first eight years. I just bought that book myself. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

history of wikipedia
Hello Wikipedia Teahouse i just want to know what came before Wikipedia? Was it Nupedia?Actionfilmlover (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see Teahouse/Questions/Archive 434. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See also Sockpuppet investigations/Freshmangrandcaravan. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Another reviewer needed
I don't want to review GA nomination Rahul Gandhi anymore. Someone else please take my place on the review page. Ikhtiar H (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, Ikhtiar H. The Teahouse is a place to learn and ask questions about editing Wikipedia, not to request that other editors take over tasks for you. I suggest that you post your request somewhere like Good article help. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Process for deleting promotional pages
Whilst working through articles, I've discovered one that seems like a simple advertising: Resnap

I've added the appropriate tags (I think), what is the next recommended step with an article like that? NilsOngeveer (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see it as promotional. But it violates Wikipedia is not a dictionary. IMHO, speedy deletion would be appropriate. Maproom (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What CSD category? Not A7: A definition is not a person, animal, organization, event, or webcontent. Not A11: The author has not made up the definition but found it on the web. Typically a definition requires a PROD or AFD. —teb728 t c 10:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, a PROD then. I wish I could find a flowchart which would guide me to the most appropriate of (CSD, PROD, AFD, leave alone). Maproom (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * CSD G11 applies for cases which are "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I believe that may be the case here, so have created an opportunity for an admin to consider that point (I tagged it).   Murph 9000  (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the answers and working on the deletion! NilsOngeveer (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

code for 2 columns
I like to make a list in 2 columns. What is the code for that? TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi - Help:Columns is a good start to look. There are several ways, depending on whether you want the page to decide where the column breaks are, or if you want to specifically tell the page where to break the columns. If you have trouble understanding that page, leave a message for me here, or on my talk page, it's really not that difficult, once you learn how.  Onel 5969  TT me</i> 15:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Many thanks!  That was exactly what I was trying to find!  TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Starting a new Live Person Biography page
Hello there. I am looking to start a new page with some facts about Yogi Aaron, also formerly known as Aaron Star. He's a yoga instructor, an author and a business owner. From what I've read so far (i'm new to editing Wikipedia) everything I say on this page should be verifiable by other sources.

Would those sources also include his book and the business website or no?

Or are the sources considered valid only if they are -for example- elephant journal, other magazines and yoga websites?

Thank you

Ballantinesrose (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Basically, no: the bulk of an article should be based solely on reliable published sources which have not connection with the subject. Non-independent sources can be used a little, to support uncontroversial factual data like places and dates; but if there are no substantial independent sources, then there shouldn't be an article. Please see your first article, if you haven't already read it.
 * My personal advice would always be to work on some existing articles first, both to get the experience, and to build a history as somebody who is here to improve Wikipedia, not just to promote a single subject. --ColinFine (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I too, am drafting a new Wikipedia page - mine is about my father's writing career. He is a renowned playwright and television screenplay writer who was a pioneer in the television industry.  My father is still alive, and has conveyed many experiences to me.  I have been able to find many independent reliable resources, such as the fact that Eleanor Roosevelt presented him with an award in 1956.  But I cannot find anything that validates his 6-day journey on the USS Nautilus Submarine for the purpose of researching a script for Armstrong Circle Theater.  It happened, and he is alive to tell about it, but if I cannot find an independent resource, does that mean I cannot include this in his page?

Thanks in advance for your help!

GggoodgggirlGggoodgggirl (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I should have added that the BULK of the information on his page is verifiable, such as IMDB database, news articles, reviews, and such. But is the facinating "fun facts," as told by him, that I would like to include.

GggoodgggirlGggoodgggirl (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . You cannot include the "fun facts" or any facts that your father told you in the article based on his unpublished personal recollections. That is original research which is contrary to our core content policies. However, you can write an article about your father and have it published in a reliable historical journal. Then, it can be cited in Wikipedia. Be careful, by the way, about IMDb. It is not universally accepted as a reliable source. Please also read our guideline regarding conflict of interest. It is very difficult to write a neutral article about your own father. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you Cullen. I do believe that I am able to write a neutral article about my father.  I can certainly remove the fun facts, but he deserves a presence on Wikipedia, as he IS in fact "noteable" and I am not sure who else would author his page.  At 90 years old, most of his past colleagues are no longer with us.  I have no intention of generating conflict of interest - just want him to be recognized for the great man he is/was and the contributions he made to world of entertainment.

Regarding the IMDB comment, I have looked at pages of television entertainers, producers, etc, and they all reference IMDB. My father has written over 100 screenplays for television since 1947. If I cannot use IMDB as a "reliable resource" where on earth would i get my citations? It is not easy to find other references to the episodes of "The Gabby Hayes Show" and "Johnny Jupiter"!

Anyway, if I want to have someone review my draft and provide feedback before I submit it- is that possible? How would I go about doing that?

gggoodgggirlGggoodgggirl (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * And actually, as a follow-up, I WAS able to find the story about my dad's the USS Nautilus submarine journey in David Susskind's published book! So that leads to another question. When referencing a book as a reliable source, where you to point the link?  I can point to Amazon or B&N, but I am not attempting to promote the sale of the book.  So what is the correct process?

gggoodgggirlGggoodgggirl (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello again, . As for your last question, I usually point to a Google Books link for a book. Amazon is overtly all about selling the book, the publisher certainly has an interest in selling it, but Google is more about presenting information about the books than actively trying to sell the book.


 * As for using IMDb, I did not say that it cannot be used, but instead that it should be used with caution, as described in WP:Citing IMDb.


 * You say that you believe that you are able to write a neutral article about your father, and I acknowledge that you have made a quite decent first attempt. But your next step should be to elimininate every trace of promotional puffery from the draft, including non-neutral language like "prizewinning" in the first sentence, and "pioneer" and "extensively" and "love for show business" (who doesn't love it?) and "next big surge of change" and "phenomenon of television exploded" (only actual explosives explode in Wikipedia's voice) and "Jerome was fortunate" and "immense admiration" and on and on. That is all non-neutral language which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article but entirely understandable when a daughter is writing about her father. If he won prizes, show that by mentioning and citing the notable prizes in an appropriate place in the body of the article, but not in the first sentence of the lead. I told you it wasn't easy. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much ColinFine.

I started doing my research and I found articles from Huffington Post, Nydaily News, LA magazine and a few other yoga related websites documenting Aaron Star as the founder of the naked yoga movemebt in New York city. Those should be valid sources right?

I want to follow your advice and start editing other pages to familiarize with the Wikipedia format, and I felt that I had something to contribute to Italian-specifically- Piedmontese traditional foods- but it appears that I am unable to use the same account for a wikipedia in other language? Thank you

Ballantinesrose (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Any hope?
Hi. I've been through a ~2 week editing process, trying to create an article on a dentist. I have done all the special coding, in-line citation, rewriting, and suggestions from reviews. Now I am being told that the article is under a speedy deletion flag because:

"Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time."

Is there any hope of creating an article that will be accepted?? Please advise.

Thank you, Sara Wrgdds1 (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You ought to read what was said to you on your previous user talk page, User_talk:Wrgdds and in reply to the question you asked here. Your previous draft, User:Wrgdds/William Gielincki, Jr. DDS was deleted under criterion WP:G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion.  Under your new user name you then tried William Gielincki, Jr. DDS- Prosthodontist which was deleted under criteria WP:A7 and WP:G11.  You have now tried Draft:William Gielincki which was declined.  Wikipedia is not here to promote and publicise the subject.  --David Biddulph (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that answer is probably no. You've done a good job learning Wikipedia's formatting and style, but this is probably a case where no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Encyclopaedias generally have very few articles about dentists - it's not really a profession that leads a person to be profiled, in depth, by multiple independent writers, which is what "notability" means on Wikipedia. Please note that if a person is not "notable" it doesn't mean that Wikipedia has judged them to be unimportant or bad in any way. --LukeSurlt c 17:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And also, if you plan to contribute in the future I suggest you take a look at WP:CITEHOW. You seem to know your way around Wikimarkup, but your referencing technique is a little off. -- Chamith   (talk)  17:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article
Hello again Wikipedia Teahouse i also want to know when the Michael Cole Wrestling Wikipedia Article was created?Morningnewswatcher (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , you have asked this question before, and it has been answered. It is disruptive to ask the same questions repeatedly. Please stop. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Freshmangrandcaravan --David Biddulph (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

What part of the "Dermaflage" page is causing it to be flagged as "written like an advertisement?"
I've recently added a new page about the company "Dermaflage." The company has a wide variety of credible press sources and other references and I've tried to keep the language about the product as neutral as possible. Can someone help explain what additional edits are needed to remove the "written like an advertisement" tag? Thanks, EvanEvkatz4 (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . The sentence "Born out of techniques developed in Hollywood by makeup artists to conceal blemishes and scars on actors" is classic promotional marketing talk, and is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Remove every trace of that kind of language. Your first reference is to PRWeb, which hosts company press releases. Press releases are not the kind of independent coverage that we are looking for. Use only high quality independent reliable sources, and summarize what they say using neutral, non-promotional prose. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)