Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 453

I need help editing the references section of an article.
I'm trying to edit an article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schoenewolf. I want to edit the References section. When I click the edit button, the reference items turn blue and on the right it says, "Template," and "Generated from Reflist." On the right of that is "Edit". If I press edit I get another box, and the heading "Reflist" and then a note, "This template displays the list of footnotes at the end of an article and provides additional formatting and organizing options. After hitting "Apply changes" and turning back to VE read mode, you will not see the references list. After hitting "Save page" and turning back to normal read mode the reference list will reappear with the changes applied, see T53146." I can't figure out from this how to edit this reference list. I just want to delete an item in the reference list and add another.Amy Capella (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC) You do not edit the reference list, you edit the article at the point where the reference first occurs. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners for the "How-to". Please note that you need a very good reason to delete a reference, not just that you disagree with it, and should explain that reason in your edit summary. - Arjayay (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Amy Capella
 * Welcome to the Teahouse. As was said in reply to your question at Help desk, references are not edited in the "References" section.  You need to go to the place in the article where the reference is used; one way of getting there is to follow the up-arrow (^) link beside the reference.  I see that you mention VE;  most of us wouldn't recommend using VE (because it is notoriously bug-ridden), but that is probably not the problem in this case.  One more point: in your question you give the url https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schoenewolf, but in general if we want to refer to a Wikipedia page we do it with a wikilink;    renders as Gerald Schoenewolf. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Manika Kaur article tone not reflecting encyclopedic tone
Hi I've written my first article about a kirtan singer Manika Kaur but apparently it's not following the right encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. It would really help if someone could tell me what in particular is wrong with it? Also in the Talk page it says that contentious material that is poorly sourced must be removed immediately - it would also be really helpful to know exactly what this is referring to, and how it can be better sourced. Thank you very much. Blue Mountain Coffee Beans (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to create and improve an article here! Taking your second concern first, the "poorly sourced" notice on the talk page is not directed at the current contents of the page! It's just a general notice that is placed on the talk pages of all biographies of living persons as a reminder to be careful when editing.


 * Now for the "tone" issue. Tone is basically just the "feel" of the article, and can be tricky to pin down. The tone issue with "Manika Kaur" is that it reads like an essay or like a magazine profile piece, not like an impartial encyclopedic article. To quote from Writing better articles, "The tone ... should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate." To improve the tone, try reading sections of your article with similar sections of other, more established, articles - #Debut album with The Beatles or Taylor Swift, for example. I hope this helps. Happy editing! – Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As to non-encyclopedic language, that is a matter of judgment, but "In her teenage years she led a peaceful life within the Sikh community singing kirtan at the Gurdwara or spending time helping out in elderly homes.

Although she never had any formal training, Kaur grew up in a spiritual environment where music occupied a very important place as a part of the Sikh culture" seems to me to be non-neutral when in the voice of Wikipedia. That is the sort of language that I expect to see in autobiographies (which are declined).  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the overall tone is too far away from what we require, Blue Mountain Coffee Beans, but I agree with the comments above that it could be more impersonal and dispassionate. Also, wording such as "it conveys a message of peace, love, and truth" needs to be attributed to its source rather than being in Wikipedia's voice, as it presents an opinion or interpretation rather than a fact. On this point, see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Usage of source with license
Hello, I am wanting to use this journal source but it has a special license at the bottom. Am I allowed to use it on Wikipedia if it has such a license? Thanks. Marshmallow Honey (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Most journal articles are copyright, Marshmallow Honey. That doesn't mean that we can't summarise what they report or use short quotes from them. It just means we can't reproduce them in full (which we wouldn't want to do in any case). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your help. Marshmallow Honey (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You can't use those words, but you can put the information in your own words and use the journal as a reference. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Greetings David Biddulph, so I can't quote the source whatsoever? Only paraphrase? I'm also a bit unfamiliar of what is the right way to use Template:Cite journal for this source, how would I go about that? Thanks for all the help. Marshmallow Honey (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Quotes are fine, as long as they don't comprise a substantial proportion of the source. See WP:COPYQUOTE on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Making my first page and I need help
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberdunk_2" is page i made which I created to help new users understand the game better. When i decided to save the page it said my page could meet criteria for speedy deletion? ZenCara (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia only has pages about Notable topics (in the special Wikipedia sense). Also, Wikipedia articles should be neutral, and not serve to advertise or promote their subjects (or anything else). Nor is Wikipedia  game guide or how-to. Unless tis game has been covered in some depth in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the creators and publishers of the game, it should not have a Wikipedia article. DES (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

we're unable to make edits to the references
I am trouble editing on Michael Tobias page. We're unable to make edits to the references, is there a reason why? We have an active account and were able to make changes to everything else, thanks!Jjp22389 (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. For most styles of referencing in use here at Wikipedia, the reference details are stored in the text adjacent to the statement being supported by the reference, not in the References section, which is only used to display them. See referencing for Beginners for more details. DES (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Jjp22389. The issue noted above is a common source of misunderstanding and so we have a template dedicated to discussing it in some detail that might help. Please see Template:Edit refs. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Jjp22389, I note that you refer to yourself as "we". Can I ask if you are sharing your account with someone, or editing as a group using one username? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Applicable sources for wikipedia page i'm writing
Hello- currently i am drafting a page about the first wii u emulator(this is a real emulator, i checked just to make sure and this one is actually real) out there called Cemu. It is the first wii u emulator to boot and play commercial games. the developers maintain a reddit page here https://www.reddit.com/r/cemu I can only find out certain information via this source. The posts i'm reffering to are ones posted by the developers(you can tell if they're a developer or not by the fact this it says CEMU Developer next to the name of the person who posted that post if they're a developer.) I need information for an infobox that i can only get there like what programming language it's written in.Which if you look at the whole page here https://www.reddit.com/r/cemu/comments/3q28w0/cemu_101_released/ one of the developers posts "It's written mostly in C. There is some C++ code for GUI stuff but that's about it." my question is can these posts by the developers on normally untrustworthy sources like reddit be cited for the article i'm going to soon upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emulator newsguy (talk • contribs) 01:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , if it can be pretty clearly established that these posts are in fact by the developers of the emulator, they could perhaps be cited under the rule on self-published statements. However, they will not contribute to establishing notability, and you must have sufficient reliable sources to establish the notability of the topic separately, otherwise these posts won't matter. DES (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Accusation of Vandalism
I have been improperly and inaccurately accused of vandalism and disruptive editing by somebody in Wikipedia and have no idea how to respond. My edits of February 15 were correct and have been retained and yet this person of apparent authority has threatened me with blocking any future edits. Since I don't know what he is referring to, I feel I am unable to make edits and so ends my experience with Wikipedia. Please advise. Burke (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Can you point out where you were accused of vandalism?  I don't see any edits on February 15 from this account.  Did you make them while logged out?  Sometimes what happens is that logged out users will receive warnings for edits made by other people who use the same ISP.  This is one reason why it's advantageous to log in to your account when you edit: you don't share your talk page with anyone else! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I found it as a banner headline when I opened Wikipedia. I found it again when I clicked Talk at the top of the page. It looked official, but I couldn't determine where it came from or anything more about it. On the 15th I corrected the entry "Brian Holland" to give his correct birth date, where his brother, Eddie Holland's, birth date was listed and I took out the word "as" in the first line of the Charles Lewis Tiffany entry where it read, "was as a nineteenth century leader in the American jewelry trade..." I marked each as a "minor edit". Burke (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * PS: I may not have been logged in when I made those edits. I'll be sure to log in in the future. Burke (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The article Brian Holland hasn't been edited since 2 February; it has no edits on 15 February. Which article do you think you edited? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you remember any quotes from the notice? Then we could at least try to pin down what generated it. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This may be Bryan Holland. Debouch (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There was an unexplained removal of content from that article about a month ago, but not by the original poster. Can the original poster please provide better information as to where they think they were accused of vandalism?


 * This is the edit in question, made while logged off as IP 107.134.222.187. &#8209; Iridescent 19:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. It appears to be nothing but an error by the experienced editor User:Rms125a@hotmail.com. It happens. Your edit certainly appears to be valid, and it was not reverted. Ignore the warning, remove it from the talk page, and contact the other editor if you are still worried (and he doesn't reply here). Meters (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This last entry seems to clear up the situation. Sorry if I overreacted but, to me, vandalism is a pretty strong word. Thanks for everyone's input. Burke (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that vandalism is a very strong word. Unfortunately, it is common for a few editors to yell "Vandalism" in order to "win" a content dispute.  Doing so, when there is a good-faith content dispute, or when there is no evidence of intent to harm Wikipedia (which is what vandalism is about), is a personal attack.  In this case, it seems that the situation has been cleared up as a mistake.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's just an assumption on my part that it was a mistake, but it certainly looks that way. It wasn't a content dispute since the edit in question corrected a clear mistake on the page (but the edit summary could have been a bit clearer). The IP had had no previous warnings, and has a history of good edits. An experienced editor left a level 3 vandalism warning but didn't revert the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 16:37, 18 February 2016‎ (UTC)

Incorrect/Conflicting WIKI Info on LIST OF TERRITORIAL ENTITIES WHERE ENGLISH IS AN OFFICIAL LANGUAGE.
I am not going to even attempt to edit the article, but am rather drawing it to your attention in the hopes that you can refer it to a competent editor.

The above listed WIKI article omits IRELAND in the sub-category titled COUNTRIES WHERE ENGLISH IS A DE-FACTO OFFICIAL LANGUAGE. English is indeed the de-facto language of IRELAND (see WIKI description of the legal term de-facto). Under the subsection COUNTRIES WHERE ENGLISH IS A DE-JURE language in the same article, IRELAND is incorrectly included. The official (de-jure) language of IRELAND is IRISH (Gaelic) though English is the de-facto spoken language.

As though to punctuate this inconsistency, IRELAND is listen as one of SIX countries in WIKI article, ANGLOSPHERE.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinguistMan62 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, LinguistMan62, and welcome to the Teahouse. According to the Constitution of Ireland, both Irish and English are official languages of the state, making English a de jure official language, not a de facto one. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not type in ALL CAPITALS. It is considered SHOUTING, and is considered to be rude on the Internet.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia
I am working on a page that is submitted for deletion. I re-wrote the "Biography" section for Austin Petersen, because it was lacking sources. I was wondering if someone could take a look at it, to see if I am on the right path. Thank youHezymundo (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article in question is Austin Petersen. It appears that the Biography section has been deleted by another editor.  I personally think that the deletion of whole sections from an article that is at AFD is not useful, because it causes the !voters to shoot at a moving target, and changes what is being considered for deletion, but that opinion is worth what you paid for it.  The real question is whether there are multiple independent reliable sources about him and about his candidacy for the Libertarian Party nomination.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

actor page
Im very confuse how to add a reference to create an actor pageBlumenstar13 (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. You will find a number of useful links on your user talk page, including to WP:Your first article, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Guys, how to mention that article is needed proofreading and contain grammar mistakes?
Diff7 (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Guys, how to mention that article is needed proofreading and contain grammar mistakes?Diff7 (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Template messages/Cleanup --David Biddulph (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

personalities without web presence
Hi

I have been wanting to set up a page about an 'Urdu' language poetess who has won a national award in Pakistan.

However, there isn't much I can find about her on internet through any authentic source. Unfortunately, she wasn't given much appreciation or recognition in media or news in general. I created an account by her name which was deleted.

I have plenty of information on her through private sources.

How do I go about it then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aizazbokhari92 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, Aizazbokhari92, and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume that when you say that you created an account, you mean an article? If that article was Narjis Afroz Zaidi, then it appears to have been deleted because it did not demonstrate the notability of the subject. To have a Wikipedia article about something, we generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Using sources that are offline is fine, but the sources do need to be published rather than private. Please see Verifiability on this. I presume that if this poet has won national awards, that will have been covered in the media? You can use this media coverage to demonstrate the subject's notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:The Descendants of American Slaves
I reviewed Draft:The Descendants of American Slaves at Articles for Creation. I declined it as not providing evidence of notability, and asked to get rid of the references to Wikipedia, which should be wikilinks, and to the organization’s own web site, which should be an external link. I then received a reply to the decline from User: DASI100. That reply didn’t ask any specific questions. So I will ask other experienced editors here to comment. The organization probably is notable, but the draft does not make a case to me for non-profit organization notability, partly because some of the references, as noted above, are clearly not valid references. I now also noticed that there are multiple external links in the body of the article. These are not permitted in the body of the article. Move them to the external links section. Also, the author of the draft is User:DASI100. Does DAS stand for Descendants of American Slaves? If so, there may be a conflict of interest, and the user name may be improper. Do other experienced editors want to comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If the editor has a COI, DASI100 should declare it on his or her user page and add connected contributor to any relevant article talk pages. Notability is inherent to a topic, but, per WP:AFCR, it still needs to be demonstrated in the draft.  But reviewers should ignore minor formatting issues like manual of style violations or embedded external links.  You can clean them up later when the article is posted.  Or tag the article for cleanup, and someone else will do it.  The important part is that the article should be able to survive an AfD discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Organizing Topic Coordination for Hypericum
Hello! I am Fritzmann2002. I have spent a lot of time working on creating articles for the many species of Hypericum. This process is very time consuming, and I am not very good at creating large articles with many different features, etcetera. To try to better the coverage of this interesting genus, I wanted to call together some editors to collaborate and learn with me and to accomplish these goals:
 * Bring the main Hypericum article to Good Article status
 * Have a Start Class article for every species in the genus, or at least those in the selected species list
 * Have an image of said species of every article
 * Create the necessary non-article material, e.g. redirects, categories, stub templates, and the like

If you would like to assist me in this, please see the talk page and add your name. I don't expect to get a lot of help, but anything is much appreciated.

Thank you, and Happy Wiki-ing,

Fritzmann2002 15:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fritzmann2002, I think if you post your request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants you're likely to find editors with similar interest who can assist you. They might be able to give you some tips to help you out with creating these articles. Good luck! Liz  Read! Talk! 14:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I will most definitely do that. Fritzmann2002 15:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Steve Wilks
Hi there i am new to wiki pedia and i would love if someone could look at this page i just made for a friend has i can't get the picture to show because i am just editor and i would love if someone could just check it over for me to make sur i stand in good stand thanks for the help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_wilks i would really appreciate the help has i this is not really my field love peace and light  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterdow123 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, Peterdow123, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have moved your question to the top of the page and given it a heading. Hidden down at the bottom beneath an existing heading, it might have gone unnoticed. Unfortunately, there are lots of problems with the Steve wilks article. The main problem is the lack of references. Not only does material on Wikipedia need to be based on what reliable sources say, but we need to know that the subject meets our notability requirements, which generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Unreferenced articles about living people are almost always deleted. The standard of English in the article is also poor, with essential punctuation missing. It also uses offensive language, such as "halfcast" (sic). The article name is also not capitalised correctly. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Finding Edit Count
I need to find my edit count, but X! is not working. Everything reads 0. Assistance please?

Thanks,

Fritzmann2002 19:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Greetings and Welcome to the Teahouse! From the top toolbar: click on Preferences and under User profile / Basic information, there should be a line for Number of edits. Cheers!  JoeHebda   (talk)  19:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I always know I can get a good, quick answer when I come to the Teahouse! Fritzmann2002 20:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

HELLO HOW ARE YOU I AM PHOENIX.= AND I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT HOW TO EDIT ON HERE.
How do i put pics on here and how do out words including link??? please help me?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olamilay (talk • contribs) 20:01, 18 February 2016‎ (UTC)
 * Please, see Help:Files and Help:Link. Ruslik_ Zero 20:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Also,, please realize this is supposed to be a serious work. Please do not type in all caps, as the is considered SHOUTing on the internet and please write in complete, grammatically correct sentences, as any additions you make to the encyclopedia will need to be written. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Permission to use photo
I have an email from the holder of the copyright to a picture, giving me permission to use it on Wikipedia. But the permission is for non-commercial use, only on Wikipedia. The picture is at https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:8c97mp28v, and it has the license CC BY-NC-ND. I would like to use it on a page I am creating: Draft:Haymarket - Boston. Can I use this picture? If so, where do I upload it, and how do I document the permission to use it? NewtonCourt (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry,, but neither CC-BY-NC-ND nor "Only on Wikipedia" are compatible licenses. The image cannot be used anywhere on Wikipedia until the copyright holder puts it under a free license, unless it fits the rather narrow fair use criteria (at WP:NFCC). See WP:COPYRIGHT for more details. DES (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Here's one last try.  Would it be acceptable as "fair use" to post on Wikipedia a 200-pixel-wide thumbnail of the historic photo?  The page with the thumbnail would have a link to the original full-size photo that's available to the public on digitalcommonwealth.org. NewtonCourt (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If the image is a unique historic image, such that no free equivalent could ever be created, and if all of the criteria at Non-free content criteria are met, then and only then could the image be used under a claim of fair use. A fair use rationale must be placed on the talk page of the article, and this can't be done while the text is in draft or user space, fair use images can only be used in main article space. DES (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi NewtonCourt. I just want to slightly clarify what wrote above. If you upload the file as non-free, then you should add the non-free use rationale ("fair use rationale") to the file's page; do not add the rationale to the talk page of the article. There are quite a few different templates you can use for the rationale, but one will be added for you if you use Wikipedia:Upload wizard to upload the image. Just follow the instructions and the appropriate template will be used. However, as DES states above, non-free images may only be used in the article namespace per WP:NFCC. So, I suggest you wait until your draft has been approved before uploading the image; otherwise, it is likely to be speedily deleted per WP:F5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I might add,, that one thing your article does not need is more pictures. Each photo in an article should directly illustrate some portion of the copy, and should be placed in physical proximity to the copy supported.  Although there are circumstances where illustration is the best method of communication, this is not one of them.  All the pictures make your draft look like a promotional brochure.  Best practice would be to create a category for these photos on Commons and link to that category using the  template.  Only chose a very few photos from your gallery and use them to directly illustrate something in the copy in the article. John from Idegon (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

How to find out if a Teahouse question has been answered?
I asked something about the Teahouse talk page a few days ago. How do I go about finding the question and whether or not discussion arose 24.144.169.31 (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse anonymous user. This is the only post you have made under this IP address. What username or other IP address did you use for your previous question. Or what was the subject of your previous question? You are giving us nothing to go on here. It also would be helpful if you created an account and logged in when you ask a question; that way we could ping you or leave you a talkback message on your user talk page when we reply. —teb728 t c 05:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It has probably been archived, IP editor. The way to find it is to search for it using the box beneath the contents listing here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank You
I just wanted to thank all of you for helping to advance the informational cloud! My viewpoint of Wikipedia has changed immensely over the years. I am very happy for that because I am one of the many people who enjoy learning a plethora of information and I would read encyclopedias to enhance my knowledge.

It was commonplace for me to become distracted by other, more interesting, topics while doing school research. Just now, I was going to edit an articleKigo, a season word used in Haiku for a small grammar error while researching about Haiku because when I updated my Firefox they gave me a free Haiku! I wrote a Haiku in response to their Haiku and I will share it with yall because I love you and this is the Teahouse so I am sharing! <3

My Haiku:

New Firefox Enhancement

Just when Feeling so insecure

Plus Free Haiku

Mozilla's Haiku:

Proudly non-profit

Free to innovate for you

And a better web

Rrrof711 (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Article relevance
Hi there,

I got in touch a few days ago to get some feedback on my draft article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Malaria_Eradication_Research_Agenda_%28malERA%29

I have added more independent sources. Please, note there are 2 peer-reviewed papers that address this topic (not only mention it), an statement from the director of WHO highlighting the relevance of malERA, more than 5 news items about this subject...

malERA is a high level/high impact topic for the eradication of malaria. Please, see the metrics that show the impact of these papers. http://almreports.plos.org/reports/metrics/20462

I think the community will greatly benefit from having this piece of information in wikipedia. Please, let me know if there is anything else I could do in order to get this published.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MESA po (talk • contribs) 09:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Rather than a url like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Malaria_Eradication_Research_Agenda_%28malERA%29 it is better to use a wikilink.  renders as Draft:Malaria Eradication Research Agenda (malERA). - David Biddulph (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you David Biddulph — Preceding unsigned comment added by MESA po (talk • contribs) 09:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, MESA po. I'm not sure that there is much more that we can advise here, other than that you add any relevant sources establishing notability to the article and then resubmit it for review. That is what the review process is for, after all. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

help
Hello, I have arthritis and I am dyslexic. I don't understand most of the stuff that I have been invited to read on wiki, instructions etc. and this internet stuff is not really my cup of tea, I don't have a good stable connection by the way. How do I submit and entry or "article" as you call it? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.221.217 (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. The best and simplest suggestion I can make is to look at Your first article. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But I would strongly advise that before embarking on the difficult and often frustrating task of creating a new article, you get a lot of experience by improving some of our five million existing articles. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Logo
Hi,

I am very new to editing and I seem to be having troubl euploading my page's logo. I have followed the help page with no success and searched on Google, still with no success. I'm sure it is simple but I just cant seem to do it. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

JCPboro — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCPboro (talk • contribs) 23:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse . I see you are using three logos on Peterborough Saxons; so I don't understand what the problem is. I see that you uploaded them to Commons, claiming they were your "own work." If they are official team logos, then I doubt they are your own work as opposed to being owned by the team. If they are not your own work they will be deleted from Commons as copyright violations. Ordinarily logos are uploaded to Wikipedia rather than Commons, and only one can be used in an article. —teb728 t c 08:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * And you have licenced them under CC-BY-SA, which gives anybody at all permission to reuse them for any purpose, commercial or not, and to modify them at will, just as long as they give proper attribution. Is that what you intended? That is not usually what owners of logos want to do. --ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

citing image and primary sources
Hello! I created a page a page and would like to improve it with images and information from the subject's widow and the woman who worked with him at the NAACP for quite a long time. How can I cite them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmurraysr (talk • contribs) 15:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . There are two separate issues here: information and images.
 * No information should appear in an article that has not been published in a reliable place (and preferably somewhere independent of the subject, though certain kinds of information can be cited to non-independent sources). Unpublished information of any sort is never permitted.
 * Images are a bit complicated, for two reasons: first it is important to get the copyright right (which usually requires the holder of the copyright in the images to explicitly release them under a licence such as CC-BY-SA (which will grant anybody at all permission to reuse them for any purpose). Secondly, using images is a two-stage process: first they need to be uploaded, and then they can be used in the article. See Help:Images and donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

A New Page
Hi guys,

I'm working on an article for a small business based in NJ called AphasiaAccess. Could you guys possibly take a look, make some edits, offer assistance, advice, etc?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TPadilla2014/AphasiaAccess

Any help would be well appreciated.

Thank you,

TPadilla2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TPadilla2014 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry to have to tell you that in its current form User:TPadilla2014/AphasiaAccess is not acceptable for use on Wikipedia. First of all, it is very promotional and not at all neutral. Indeed it reads like a fundraising brochure for the organization. See our guideline on promotion to help understand why this is not acceptable. Secondly, the draft does not establish the organization's Notablility. See our guideline on the notability of organizations. In general, there must be significant coverage by multiple independent  published reliable sources. This means discussion of the organization itself, not merely of the cause to which it is addressed (aphasia, in this case). There should be a minimum of 2-3 paragraphs about the organization in at least 2-3 independent sources. More may be needed, depending on the depth of coverage and the quality of the sources. Moreover, most of the  cites sources at present are to the organization's own web site. These do nothing to establish notability, and the use of so many of them is a warning flag of an unacceptable article.
 * There are also some formatting issues, particularly with the way sources are being cited. See Referencing for Beginners. The title of the source article or paper or book, date of publication, author, and venue of publication (title of magazine, newspaper, web site or the like) of the source being cited should always be included unless the publication omits them. However these details can be corrcted easily enough, once the major issues of content and notability are dealt with.
 * Only reliable sources should be cited to establish facts.
 * I notice that the logo was uploaded to commons, released under CC-BY-SA, and listed as "own work". Was that logo really your own personal work? Did you really intend to make it available to anyone in the world to use or alter for any purpose, including commercial use, forever? Most logos are copyrighted and are used here under a claim of fair use. See WP:NFCC for more details. But logos and other images should come late in the development of an article, anyway.
 * I hope that these comments are helpful to you. DES (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi TPadilla2014, your draft has no independent reliable sources to confirm that the organization is actually notable. Wikipedia does not really care what any subject has to say about itself, the publications of independent outside commentators, such as journalists or academics are what makes a topic Notable. So you need to look for mainstream news or magazine articles that discuss the organization in considerable depth and detail. Your draft also reads like an advertorial brochure giving the kind of information the organization would want to put out, but we need neutral description, not promotion. By the way, I removed a deprecated inline external link and added the actual url of a source to a reference (currently the 2nd one in the lead). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

No rowspan in filmographies
Is that a stying or a thing on Wikipedia? Or rowspans are allowed on films? Winterysteppe (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I know that rowspans are discouraged because they impede accessibility as I understand some monitors for visually impaired people can not format the tables properly with this wikicode. You can find discussions about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film or check Manual of Style/Accessibility. Liz  Read! Talk! 18:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether or not to use rowspan has been a contentious topic at WP:FILMBIO. One of the more recent discussions was here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Any limits to submitting an article?
Hi there

I have submitted my first article and it's been rejected twice. I've edited it again and I'm hoping for 'third time lucky'. If it is rejected again is there a limit to the number of times an article can be submitted?

Thanks.

Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davcomedia (talk • contribs) 13:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, Davcomedia, and welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I'm aware, there is no limit on the number of times you can submit a draft article for review. However, you should obviously make sure that you have addressed any concerns identified in the previous review before resubmission (which I presume you have done). Cordless Larry (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you 'Cordless Larry'. I really appreciate your super-fast reply.
 * I was surprised on both previous submissions that it had been declined due to the quality of the citations I had included. Anyhow, I've made them very tight this time round and hoping all will be OK.
 * Thanks again.
 * Ian Davcomedia (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, perhaps I should have included a link to my latest draft. Please excuse my ignorance when it comes to Wikipedia... I'm new here and terrified.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jonno_davies
 * Regards.
 * Ian Davcomedia (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify, we are discussing Draft:Jonno davies (you'll want to fix the capitalisation at some point). The thing to understand about "notability" here on Wikipedia, Davcomedia, is that it refers to the need for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. While you have cited some good sources for verifying facts in the article, not many of them consist of detailed discussion of Davies. "Significant coverage" can be understood to refer to the quantity of sources about the subject, but also to this need for depth of discussion. Good sources would be newspaper profiles of Davies and the such like. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks once again for your comments. Yes, we are discussing the draft for Jonno Davies. Not sure why it's showing a lower case 'd', must be my lack of typing skills, though I can't actually see where I can change it in the editor? As for the citations, my understanding was they had been rejected due to their quality rather than quantity so I culled those I suspected were regarded as poor and added more from really good sources including IMDB, the BBC, Time Out and Disney. Do you feel I will need more?
 * Thanks.
 * Ian Davcomedia (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is not so much the number of sources, Davcomedia, but rather the number that provide in-depth coverage of Davies. Most are just confirming that he appeared in something. Note that there is some debate about the reliability of IMDB, as it features user-generated content. See Citing IMDb on this. To move the page, you need to click on the "Page" menu at the top of the screen, then "Move page". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you once again, Cordless Larry (sorry, I don't know how to add your hyperlink). Thank you for stressing the importance of in-depth coverage and I wasn't aware that IMDB wasn't regarded as a reliable source. I'm sure I can find better. I am, however, a liitle confused by your 'move page' instruction. What is the purpose of doing that? I don't understand. Does that allow me to change 'davies' to Davies somehow? Ian Davcomedia (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's OK, Davcomedia - I tend to watch this page closely, so am seeing your replies even though you're not pinging me. If you want me or any other user to receive a notification, you can use the code in the post. Moving a page is the same as changing its title, so you would move it from Draft:Jonno davies to Draft:Jonno Davies. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to inundate you with issues to deal with, Davcomedia, but I have just realised that there is a potential problem with your username. I will post a message on your user talk page about how to resolve this. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * First, the original poster has changed their user name from the above to User:Rob Bolton. Second, the draft in question is Draft:Jonno davies.  Third, there is no specific rule about how many times a draft may be submitted.  Thank you for asking.  As User:Cordless Larry points out, the real problem is editors who repeatedly resubmit a draft with no real effort to address the overall concerns of the reviewers.  This annoys the reviewers and wastes their time.  An example of such tendentious behavior would be if a reviewer said, "Remove peacock language such as 'is an internationally acclaimed violinist' in the voice of Wikipedia", and the editor removes that statement and leaves the rest of the peacock language in.  Thank you for asking.  Do your best to address the concerns of the reviewers.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you and  for your help and guidance. Cordless Larry, I took your advice and changed my username. I will endeavour to improve the quality of my proposed article and the citations. I may have to come back for guidance about how to 'move page' to rectify the davies/Davies issue as I'm still unsure about that action. In the meantime, my thanks once again. Rob Bolton (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've moved the draft to Draft:Jonno Davies. See WP:Moving/  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Live it Up! with Donna Drake
I reviewed Draft:Live it Up! with Donna Drake and declined it because the references do not show notability. There are two references to Articles, but they are not properly formatted. I also advised changing a “Not to be confused with” comment to a hatnote.

I also note that the section headings need to be wikiheadings, and that the celebrity guests should be blue links, and that other subjects that have their own articles should have blue wikilinks.

Its author, User: Boop2016, requested assistance at my talk page. It may be that they need assistance with the references. It may be that they need advice on hatnotes. They also need advice on wikiheadings and wikilinks. Can some experienced editor advise them? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, User:Boop2016. I suggest that you consult Help:Referencing for beginners to learn how to cite sources properly. You also need to look for and cite more sources that discuss the subject in some depth, which need to amount to significant coverage to demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

John Thrasher entry
Hi: I would like to change the title of an entry I have been editing, which is a biography of John Thrasher. I would like to change it from "John Thrasher" to "John J. Thrasher" to distinguish it from "John E. Thrasher" which is a separate entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiana Author (talk • contribs) 19:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , was he most commonly known as "John Thrasher" or as "John J. Thrasher"? When possible, we use the most common form of the name here. What do your sources say? See WP:COMMONNAME for more details. To change the title, use the move function. Any autoconfimred user (an account at least 4 days old, with 10 or more edits) can use this function. DES (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Indiana Author isn't autoconfirmed yet. User:Indiana Author - Stop labeling your edits as minor edits. Read WP:Minor edit.  Your edits are not minor edits.  A minor edit is one that no reasonable editor could disagree with, such as the correction of typos.  Content changes are not minor.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

self published statement
I am using some self published statements for an article i will soon upload to wikipedia. How do I refer to those specific posts since they are reddit posts by the developers.Emulator newsguy (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The developers of what? I think that the answer to your question is that you shouldn't refer to self-published sources, because they are not reliable sources, and that Reddit is not a reliable source because it doesn't have editors (like a newspaper) or peer-reviewers (like a scientific journal).  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Hi Emulator newsguy. It depends on whether these primary source statements are straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, or something else like interpretive claims and analysis (and self-aggrandizement). The context of the posts will also need to be in some form that makes them verifiably that of the  developers (such as in an "AMA" [Ask me Anything] session, and not easily just some random post with someone proclaiming their status. In short, they need to be used with great care, if at all. Certainly, the article should not in large part be based on them. They will also do nothing to establish notability − which requires citation to reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the topic and discuss it in substantive detail. (If those sources don't exist, do not write any article at all − note: it must be written, not uploaded.) If these sources are suitable for use, you might make sure they are archived through Archive.org, so that if they ever go dead, they will still be able to be viewed (though I'm not certain Reddit pages can be archived) and then use the archive link feature of our citation templates, such as . Please remember that providing proper citations (in a transparent manner) is very important here. See generally Citing sources, Help:Referencing for beginners and Your first article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Arthur Street School
I am from Dunedin, trying to add an article called 'Arthur Street School'. This school is the first school in Dunedin. It is significant because the school started on one of the first colonial ships to arrive in Dunedin, the Phillip Laing, which arrived at the port of Dunedin, New Zealand, in 1848. The school then became Beach Street School, before moving to its current location in Arthur Street in 1877. I hoisted the article 'Arthur Street School', which was immediately flagged for deletion despite there being references and citations. I added two notes in the edits saying I was conducting more research offline, in the Dunedin Public Library and Hocken Library. Having done that I came back to find the article deleted. What am I supposed to do? This is incredibly frustrating. Please advise the best procedure for creating an article and keeping it. Cargill208 (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . There is a strong working consensus that very few primary schools are notable enough for a freestanding Wikipedia article. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for details. Exceptions would be schools of indisputable historic or architectural significance. If you believe that this school is historic enough, please take it up with the deleting administrator. I recommend that you check the notability guidelines before starting an article. It is also wise to develop a draft article in your sandbox or in draft space, until it is developed and well-referenced, before moving it to the main part of the encyclopedia. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  23:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . The article Arthur Street School still exists, but it was converted into a redirect to List of schools in Otago. This was done by, with the edit summary " (per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:ORG and WP:GNG)". If you follow those links, you will see that Boleyn believes that the article does not establish that the school is "notable" in Wikipedia's sense, and so should not be the subject of an article. Your paragraph above suggests that it might be notable, but the text in your most recent version does nothing to establish this: it needs references to reliable published sources that discuss what might make it notable - its history.
 * I have therefore moved it to Draft:Arthur Street School (and reverted to the version before the redirect was added). Please work on it there, but bear in mind the links Boleyn gave. When you think it is ready to be released, edit it to insert {{subst:submit}} at the top. I strongly suggest that any further articles you want to create, you use the article wizard to create them in draft space directly. --ColinFine (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Remove word
I can not make the word "empiricism" normal. It is too black. Can you help at in article Ludwig Wittgenstein? In the part in The Vienna Circle. It is like when on article I am in the front of text, here I am behind. I also want to make words blue, so they go to at other article. The blue works if copied. I copied word "Western philosophy" so that is blue, it is nice. But I don't know how to make word blue myself. If I not find them blue already. And what is that conflict, when everything disappears?Michael Bergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Teahouse, that is nice. Very English, drinking tea, yes? Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. When a section of text is enclosed in  it is displayed in boldface. This usually makes it look darker and thicker, depending on the user's browser settings.  To make a wiki-link, enclose the subject in  . The result will be a link such as Ludwig Wittgenstein. By default links are rendered in blue, although this can be changed in the users browser settings. See Help:editing for many more formatting methods. DES (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, nice, thank you. Why is there difference when editing an article and here, talk page? It is like being in front of the text. Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC) I understand now. It is different: edit source and edit. It will be different. Edit / then it is in front of the text. Edit source /then it is behind. Then every small sign you talk about appear. Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See VisualEditor for instructions on how to use the "in front" editing. My personal advice: don't use it. DES (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

>>Don't use it? Better the other way? OK. Yes, the other one it was more easy to change the boldface. The other will not work. Just jumps. Thank you, and it was nice to meet you! Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia username
Hi all,

I created my username in Wikipedia, and also my user page talk. I did it in my office's computer, and I saved the changes. When I entered my username and password at home, I don't know why I don't have my user talk page nor anything I have created and edited. Do I have to do everything in the same computer? Thank you very much!

Nuriaj95 (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, Nuriaj95, and welcome to the Teahouse. You should be able to log in, edit and access your user page and user talk page from any computer, so I don't know why you are not able to do this at home. Are you sure that you have successfully logged in there? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , your user page at User:Nuriaj95 has a one-line entry, which was the first edit you made with this signon; is this what you intended? If there were other subsequent changes that are not shown, it is possible that you missed the last step in the edit, which is to press the "Save page" button at the bottom of the edit screen.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you have a user talk page on Spanish Wikipedia at es:User talk:Nuriaj95. Is that the page you are missing? —teb728 t c 02:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, are you part of the Sterling University class that was having trouble misusing user talk pages? If so, I think the instructor found an alternate solution. —teb728 t c 02:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Judging by what other Sterling students are doing,, I think you are supposed to be at Wikibooks at b:User talk:Nuriaj95. —teb728 t c 03:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)