Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 488

COI in creating page for AWA Lighting Designers
Hello all, I'm working on my first article, but I am a "paid contributor" (the subject is my employer) and well aware of the accompanying COI issues. Rather than just toss in my hat, I want to make sure I do everything properly; I understand that submitting a draft to AfC with the proper COI tag, connected contributor (paid), is a final step. However, how much or how little content is appropriate? And what kinds of information should I include or avoid (e.g., listing projects, biographical material like education/employment, etc.)? I know these are murky waters I'm navigating, so thank you for your patience and help.

A link to the current draft is here: User:Camnelson15/AWA_Lighting_Designers. I've kept it short to start, and don't worry about more general issues, I plan to have third-party sources for everything, and format it all nicely. The main thing I want to understand is COI ethics/procedures. I'm taking this one step at a time.

Thanks again!

Camnelson15 (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just letting you know, I replaced with  so that this page  is no longer tagged as having a connected contributor. --  The Voidwalker  Discuss 20:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for being up-front about your status. I have taken the liberty of replacing your external link above by a Wikilink, for clarity.
 * The (potential) problem is that you have started the wrong way round. You have started with information you know about the company, put it in, and found sources for it. That is better than a lot of people manage, who don't even provide sources. But it is not the way to write a good Wikipedia article. What you need to do is to start by finding independent reliable sources that discuss the company in depth. Then you should forget every single thing you know about the company, and write an article based strictly on what these sources say (though in your own words, so as not to infringe their copyright). If that gives you a substantial article, then you might fill it out with factual information from the company's own resources, and add a selection of products or projects that they have done. But an article that consists almost entirely of projects or products is not encyclopaedic, and indicates that either the company is not notable or that the writer has not found the sources which will establish its notability.
 * I'm not sure about the two references for which you haven't given URL's, but of the five you have, not one is a substantial piece about the company - they all just mention it; and few of them are independent: if they are published by a company they work with, they are not independent. It is possible that references 2 or 6 are substantial pieces about the company; but given that you have used them to support specific projects, I doubt it. You need to find articles in major newspapers or magazines, or books from reputable publishers, which have substantial pieces about the company (not just about its founder, or about particular projects), written by independent people, not associates of the company (and also not based on press releases or interviews). If you can find some, then write the article based on those; if you can't, then give up, because in that case the company doesn't meet our criteria for notability. --ColinFine (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you ColinFine, I'll give that approach (coming at it blind) a shot! Your candor is appreciated. --Camnelson15 (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Blanking content
(cut and paste from archive) I am trying to work on an editing issue with another editor who blanked a lot of content that I referenced very well and was an update to older research. I would rather do this between the editor and myself before I revert, but isn't blanking content sometimes considered a form of vandalism? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Bfpage, you're not a new user by any means; why are you asking this at the Teahouse, since you know perfectly well how WP:BRD works? Assuming it's the sequence of edits at Probiotic and its related pages which are the issue, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine is the place to go for what will be a discussion requiring fairly specialist input on the relative validity of different research groups, if you can't get a consensus on the article talkpages. (I'm noting a singular absence of attempts by you to discuss this on the talk pages, FWIW.) ‑ Iridescent 19:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you really are User:Bfpage, an experienced editor and a Teahouse host, not a Teahouse guest, then I wonder whether your Visiting Scholar account has been compromised, because you know how to report vandalism and how to use WikiProjects to get expert participation. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Not such a friendly response...hmmmm, maybe even a bit icy. Though I am not a new editor by any means and did not say that I was, I still have an editing question. I am sorry that I did not get back sooner. My question is not about the Probiotics article at all. As a matter of fact, I have absolutely no problems with the Probiotic article and hope to continue to work with other editors to make it better. I have waited until my editing history was long enough so that my question would not be tied to a particular article and that assumptions like the ones made above could not be made. Yes, I know about being bold, but the edits I am referring were not so bold. As for my account being compromised, that is not the case as far as I know. Discussing small edits made over a relatively long period of time is not something that usually merits discussion on talk pages. You won't find too much from me on the Probiotics talk page since I don't have a problem with the editing. I generally avoid reverting, it gets so contentious. But the edits made to an article that I was working on were not bold but over time much of my MEDRS supported content was removed - one small edit at a time. Essentially in the course of a two week period, at least half of it was gone. My point is that if the content were removed all at once, it would be blanking content, is that correct? I think I get the gist of what you might be getting at - blanking content in small, incremental steps is not a form of vandalism, yes? Best Regards.
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC) and
 * I, for one, really don't like to answer questions of this level of generality. The answer to questions of this high level of generality is typically:  Sometimes.  Maybe.  However, to answer your question as you asked it, you already know that large-scale blanking, unless accompanied by a detailed edit summary, is usually a form of vandalism.  You appear to be referring to repeated small-scale blanking of content.  If you are saying that small edits over a period of time are not normally discussed on talk pages, I wouldn't generalize, and your question makes me uneasy because of its generality, but I wouldn't say that repeated small edits with an overall effect are not worth discussing.  You are forcing me to do a lot of guesswork, which is why I really don't like your question, but, if an editor is repeatedly removing small amounts of content, knowing or hoping that the edits will not be discussed, it probably isn't vandalism as such, because it may be POV-pushing instead.  Now, rather than deliberately being annoying and vague and general, will you please direct us to an article?  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. It has really helped me. I am sorry to be forcing you to do a lot of guesswork and my question is genuinely being asked in good faith. I needed a general answer about editing and what you wrote makes a lot of sense. I don't intend to be deliberately annoying but my question was really about editing and blanking of content and you have given me an unbiased viewpoint about blanking content vs. POV-pushing. I won't direct you to an article, I am sorry. Instead if I continue to have questions about the kind of blanking of content that may be happening, I will discuss with such things with any editor with whom I have a problem. I am here to make an encyclopedia and learn as much as I can from other experienced editors like yourself. I am not sure why I am annoying. I don't want to be. Best Regards,
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC) (other username, )

Which of my sources are not reliable?
Hello :) My article was declined, and I would like some help determining how to correct it to wikipedia standards: Draft:James Norley (model/actor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Norley_(model/actor)

My 3 sources were Models.com, IMDb, and Twitter.

Models.com lists all the previous work of models with links to the work to verify it.

IMDb doesn't allow user-generated content when it comes to the work the actor has done. Users can't even submit their own, someone from the film team does that, and IMDb has to approve them, so that would count as reliable right?

Twitter, I can see how that's not reliable because people can say anything they want in their bios.

Any help is welcome. Thank you very much! Nephasno (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Please start by reading and thoroughly understanding Your first article. We require significant coverage of the topic in independent, reliable sources to establish notability. The model directory is, well, just a directory. Directory listings do not establish notability. IMDb may have limited use on Wikipedia, but the content you mention is also, in effect, a directory listing, which does not establish notability. An official Twitter feed may be acceptable for a few non-controversial biographical details, but it is most certainly not an independent, reliable source, so has no value in establishing notability. We need solid prose coverage in several independent sources with reputations for accuracy and professional editorial control. Lacking that, Wikipedia would instantly deteriorate into a swamp of spam and gossip. No, people cannot say anything they want in their Wikipedia biographies. They have no ownership rights whatsoever. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  07:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Somewhere the documentation discourages the use of IMDb. Twitter is just a social site that anyone can contribute to, so of course it's fairly unreliable. I guess one reason why so many entries on Wikipedia have the "need citations" template is beause reliable sources are hard to find, while unreliable sources are plentiful, especially on the internet. -- Vmavanti (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That documentation on IMBDb would be WP:CITINGIMDB. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

How can use references for an article in a different language?
I would like to translate articles from English to Spanish but I don't know if is allowed use the same reference to the same article but with different language? Fujiiy (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We can't really answer that question for the Spanish Wikipedia. It is OK to use Spanish (or other non-English) sources on the English Wikipedia, as long as they meet our reliable sourcing standards (though if there is a local language edition of a given source, it's nice to cite that alongside the foreign language source).  Some other language Wikipedias have different standards for what constitutes a reliable source, though I've gotten the impression that ours are a bit more strict than some others. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Can I use Korean reference on English wikipedia?
Can I use Korean reference on English wikipedia? I didn't find a English reference, so I used Korean references only. Is it OK? Gong Ju-young (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As long as that source meets the rest of our reliable sourcing standards, language is not an issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

will my article be deleted which has wrong english grammer and wrong spelling?
will my article be deleted which has wrong english grammer and wrong spelling?Berlinuno (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Grammar and spelling are not reasons to delete an article. When an article is deleted, it is most likely deleted because it does not cite enough reliable sources.  See WP:42 for more information on how to avoid that problem.  Another reason might be plagiarism and copyright violations, but if you're writing with "wrong" English, then you're doing a good job of avoiding plagiarism.  Ian.thomson (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

What to do when I find a factual error?
I found part of an article that I'm fairly certain is wrong. I looked at the Edit history for someone I can contact, but for various reasons it didn't look promising, among them my inability to decipher which contributor wrote the part in question. What do I do about this? --Vmavanti (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're certain something is wrong, change it. If someone reverts you, be prepared to discuss the change on the talk page, citing reliable sources to support the change.  WP:WIKIBLAME links to a tool that can help you find out who added the material in the first place. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

My References are not coming out right!
Hi! I have written a draft (Link: []) which was submitted for review but declined along with reasons. I have so far fixed some of the issues but i am having confusions regarding a few things.

Firstly, my references are not coming out right. I have followed the correct procedure of citing external links in text. But when i preview my changes and click on the reference, it does not redirect to the website which i have cited, even though the URL posted is correct. Kindly advise.

Secondly, how to insert categories list at the end of the article? If i don't insert categories, will that effect my submission?

Thirdly, i want to insert an image within the text. Do i have to use the file upload wizard or i can embed the image through source editing?

Thanks in advance. Ahmedasghar2016 (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. While wikilinks to other articles are formatted by separating the displayed text and the article title by a pipe character , for external links this (somewhat counter-intuitively) breaks the format. For external links the URL is separated from the displayed text by a space


 * Don't worry about the categories for now; they do not affect your submission. In fact, there is a special trick one needs to employ to add categories to draft articles to prevent them from being categorized as articles. If and when categories become relevant, see Categorization.


 * The same goes for images: they are a finishing touch and do not have an effect on the submission. Images need to be uploaded either onto Wikipedia via the Upload Wizard or to Wikimedia Commons to be used. In either case one need's to be absolutely familiar with the copyright status of the image and the licensing policies of Wikimedia.


 * By far the most serious issue with your draft is the quality of your sources; blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Why am I not able to edit an a wikipedia article?
I am a wiki-editor. As soon, as I log in, I would find the Edit button between 'Read' and 'View History' buttons, so that I can edit the article. But, In the recent days, I don't find the 'Edit' button, Instead I find 'Edit source' button. Through this button, I am not able to edit it. What to do? I want to edit some articles. BawinV (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Some articles are page protected for various reasons. Without knowing what article you tried to edit, I cannot tell you the reason why.  This prevents users from editing the page if they are not autoconfirmed or confirmed (which you should be), extended confirmed (users with more than 500 edits over 30 days), or even administrators.  It doesn't really have anything to do with you.  Ian.thomson (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If the page was fully protected you would see "View source" not "Edit source". AFAIK "Edit source" is for people with Visual editor enabled, to allow them to access the "classic" wikitext source editor, so they can enter more complex coding, or edit pages which Visual editor cannot cope with. - Arjayay (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi BawinV, welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to use VisualEditor then "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta" should be disabled at Special:Preferences. When it's disabled there is an "Editing mode" menu where you can choose which editors to see. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Article advice
How can I do much better my article? This article is an assignament from one class. Likn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fujiiy/sandbox

I'm beginer using wikipedia and im not sure how to use it very well.

Thank you Feryeah13 (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * We cannot know how your teacher will judge your work. Is the teacher a Wikipedia contributor? What is their account name? I see that you have paragraphs starting "this place", then "this forest", then "this ecological park". In some contexts this is approved, and called "elegant variation", but in a Wikipedia article it is disapproved, you should just use the subject's name "Seoul Forest" each time. Maproom (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Incidentally. I see that Wikipedia already has an article on Seoul Forest, so your version will never be accepted as an article. Maproom (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It can, however, be merged there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Need a person with admin privledges to delete a picture I uploaded.
I am a new user. I uploaded a picture to wikipedia. Then the next day uploaded the same picture to commons (with a longer description), creating a duplicate. I would like use the picture in commons. Can somebody be so kind as to delete the picture from wikipedia, so that I can continue to edit (I would like see the results - formatting, etc.).

The name of the file is: 1-Inch Micro Table Saw.jpg

Prototype Engineer (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @Prototype Engineer: done. :) Though in passing, I think the wikicode, formatting, and the like should be exactly the same whether the image is local or on Commons, so I don't think it needed to have stopped you. Regardless, you should be good to go now, so happy editing. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Cant upload photo and Believe that I made wrong
Please help me understand why we do not have permison to upload picture in the infobox? We are registered and confirmed. Please see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Don_Bennechi&action=edit

Venus Recordings Scandinavia (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. I believe that you were trying to get the infobox to use an existing image file from Commons.  I corrected the link in . --David Biddulph (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you! :-)

Venus Recordings Scandinavia (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , please make notice of the message on your talk page and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's Username, Conflict of interest, and Paid-contribution disclosure rules as applicable. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Archiving
How do I archive stuff on my Talkpage? It's starting to get pretty long.&#42;Treker (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi &#42;Treker there are several ways - take a look at Help:Archiving a talk page that should help you. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you.&#42;Treker (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Viaf and musicbrainz numbers
I have an article that requires both VIAF No and Musicbrainz numbers added?? How or whom do I speak with to have this information added??? I placed the information on his article talk page as I did not know what else to do with it??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Carey_(musician) T Heart (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . For instructions regarding the VIAF number, please see Authority control. I am unfamiliar with MusicBrainz. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  17:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added the identifiers on Wikidata. They should be visible at the bottom of the article in: Pat Carey (musician). 84.251.37.56 (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, thank you much. You have handled several things for me in the past. Thank you also to the IP address that added that info for Mr. Carey. I am just finishing the research on another and will be faced with this same scenario again. T Heart (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Waiting for review
Hi. I posted a draft article in March and have not received any feedback. I'm not very familiar with the process, but I gather that an article must be reviewed by volunteers before it is posted online. Is this correct? What is the best way to make sure the process is going properly? Is there a way to accelerate the review? Thanks John.gibson30 (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi John.gibson30 your draft Draft:Robert A.M. Stern Architects was not actually submitted for review - add to the top to do this. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi KylieTastic thanks for your help! I followed your directions and added to the top of my draft. I was then redirected to a page with a CAPTCHA Security check. When I enter the code and hit save, I'm sent back to the same page. Am I doing something wrong? Thanks for your help! John.gibson30 (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually KylieTastic, it looks like it got submitted for review! Sorry for the many messages. Thanks! John.gibson30 (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi John.gibson30 yes it is submitted now, no worry about the messages just glad you got it sorted. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't find the draft I wrote, can you tell me where to look?
I can't find the draft I wrote, can you tell me where to look?Shotzie62 (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. If you click on the "Contributions" link at the top of any page, it takes you to Special:Contributions/Shotzie62. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I assume you are referring to Draft:Stephen Anderson Smith? If not, please help us to help you, and tell us what it was about - Arjayay (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

How did this edit become a "removal"?
Good Evening, I recently made an edit to the Wikipedia article for Andy Garcia. The article stated he was a Republican. I edited that statement so it reflected the fact that this year he was named one of the "Top 50 Most Influential Latino Republicans." My edit was reverted on the grounds as "self-sourced addition and unexplained removal of sourced material." See compared revisions below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Garc%C3%ADa&type=revision&diff=721848030&oldid=721806601

I reverted this back to my edit because (a) the recognition reinforces the point made in the original edit (that Garcia is Republican), (b) I never removed the original source - I added the new one so both the original reference to Garcia being a Republican and the new one that recognizes him for his influence as such as there supporting the edit I made (it doesn't remove the substance of the original statement that was edited but adds merit to it), (c) the source I added is a recognition: it's not the type of article that lends itself to these standard categories.

Before I engage in an editorial battle over what seems like a minuscule edit, I want to learn what I am missing here. The main point is that this is not the removal of the substance of the original edit: it's an addition that reinforces the statement, not to mention that both the original reference and the new one I added were both preserved in my edit. What am I missing?Polisci101 (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

PS - I've also just discovered that the original source actually lead to a bad link: http://hollywoodrepublicans.com/recommendations.htm. I am removing that, accordingly - but it also feel this further supports my edit and actually weakens the case for the original.Polisci101 (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . You need to take this up with the, who reverted your change, either on their User Talk page or on the article's talk page. I don't see it as a removal myself, but there isn't a right and wrong about this: Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and when somebody disagrees with you, the first thing to do is to discuss it with them. See WP:BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks . It seems this could be going back and forth but I did make my case in the User Talk page now. I appreciate the feedback.

Answers
Who answers all of our questions? I'm just wondering, but who answers us? **1624** 20:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username1624 (talk • contribs)
 * Do you mean here at the Teahouse, ? Questions asked here are answered by a group of regular "hosts", listed at Teahouse/Hosts, plus some other experienced editors who drop by the page regularly. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

World cat identifier on an article
How do I get a World Cat Identifer removed from an article? The article it is attached to is a different person with the same name???? https://www.worldcat.org/identities/viaf-102795846/T Heart (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Rehouse, . You can either correct the number or remove the template. Please see OCLC and Template:OCLC for details. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  17:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cullen... okay, however, I do not believe I have permission to do that?? When I go to the page I see no way for me to make corrections in that area. It must be someone higher up than me. But the template has to be removed it is not the same person, they just have the same first and last name. This is the profile it has to be removed from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kendall T Heart (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Cullen... I just went and looked and only template editors or Admins can alter that info. Which explains why I cannot see it. Thanks much (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Authority_control&action=edit) T Heart (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I think has misled you. The information which authority control picks up is from Wikidata. As far as I can see, Q5525355 is the Wikidata record for the right Gary Kendall, and has the right Viaf ID, 102795846. If you follow the link from the Wikidata record, it takes you to http://viaf.org/viaf/102795846, which again seems to be the right Gary Kendall. However, if you follow the Worldcat link from the Authority Control on the Wikidata page Gary Kendall, it takes you to https://www.worldcat.org/identities/containsVIAFID/102795846, which has the right VIAF ID, but seems to relate to a different Gary Kendall. It seems to me that this means that it is Worldcat that has got the wrong person, not Wikidata (or Wikipedia). But I know nothing about Worldcat, so perhaps it is more subtle than that. --ColinFine (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello ColinFine... thank you for your reply as I know nothing of any of this, just know I have to provide it for details. Yes GK's VIAF and Musicbrainz is accurate it is him. But that WorldCat is a PHD. professor originally from Belfast now in Texas. The fact it is wrong how do I go about getting that world cat identifier removed from GK's profile permanently. Or I do not even know what World Cat is or if they can be contacted to explain this is an error on their part??T Heart (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , I apologize if my answer was misleading. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No apology necessary. I wrote to WorldCat even though I really do not know what I am talking about. I hope they understand. T Heart (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The Production section of Jamie Scott website has disappeared
Hi there, I am editing Jamie Scott’s Wiki site and the whole ‘Production’ section - that used to be just below ‘songwriting’ and looked like the songwriting section - has vanished. Here is the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Scott Can you shed any light on this please? Catherine Songs (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Catherine Songs it appears to have been deleted on the 5 April 2016‎ with this edit by Catherine Records. However you both appear to be editing with a Conflict of interest and have user names the imply shared use which is against the user name policy (see WP:ISU). Regards KylieTastic (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

ok, thanks of getting back. i have no idea what you're talking about re user names but is there any way of getting this production section back? how could i have deleted it? Catherine Songs (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * , all the previous versions of the article are there by picking History at the top. But before worrying about the minutiae of what is in the article, please pay attention to some Wikipedia policies. has pointed out that your user name is probably not acceptable, and linked to a page which explains this: user names may not suggest that they are editing on behalf of an organisation, and may not be shared by several users. If you are indeed part of Catherine Songs, then you are editing with a conflict of interest, as Kylie also suggested, and you need to understand and follow the recommendations in that link. Please be aware that it is not "Jamie Scott's Wiki site", it is Wikipedia's article about Jamie Scott, and Jamie Scott and his friends, relatives and associates are strongly discouraged from editing the article in any way. The article should conform to the special rules on biographies of living people: at present, only a couple of the references are substantial, reliable, and independent. --ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

guys, can you let me know how to delete accounts?! thank you. Catherine Songs (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We can't completely delete an account because it has a history of contributing to the encyclopedia, and we keep a record of every contribution. You can just stop using an account if you want to. Please read Courtesy vanishing for other options. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Giljonnys Dias da Silva
Hi my name is Giljonnys Dias da Silva. I would like to know how many months my biography will be created on Wikipedia, can you answer my question please? I thank you for any answer you give me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giljonnys (talk • contribs) 18:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . If you mean what you have written on your user page, User:Giljonnys, I'm afraid the answer is, Never. Your user page is for sharing information about you as a Wikipedia editor. A limited amount of biographical material about yourself outside Wikipedia is allowed, but it may not be anything resembling a Wikipedia article.
 * Wikipedia is not for you to publicise yourself: Autobiography is strongly discouraged. If there exist reliable published sources, entirely independent of you (so, not only not written by you or your associates, but not based on a press release or and interview with you), which talk about you at some length, then Wikipedia may have an article about you, based almost entirely upon what those sources say; but it will not be your article, and should not be written by you. Please read your first article as well as the page about autobiography I linked to above. If you think you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then you may request at requested articles that somebody write an article about you. --ColinFine (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . I agree with what wrote above. Editors are allowed to post some personal information on the user pages, but only stuff that is in compliance with Wikipedia:User page. Wikipedia user pages are not intended to be personal websites for editors to use as they please and we as editors do not even own any of the content we post on our user pages. Your user page currently looks like an article about you, and you should be aware that sometimes such pages are deleted per WP:FAKEARTICLE. In fact, it looks like your user page was tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G11 by, but you removed the tag (which is something you shouldn't have really done) so the risk of deletion is quite real. So, I suggest that you move the content you're working on to either the draft namespace or to your userspace before it get's deleted by an administrator. You can add Template:Draft article or Template:User sandbox to the top of the page since doing so will help let others to see that it is a work in progress. Experienced editors tend to refrain from editing such pages unless they are asked to do so or there is a major policy/guideline violation that requires attention. As ColinFine also pointed out above, writing about yourself (i.e., an autobiography) is not expressly prohibited by Wikipedia, but it is something which is highly discourage because of the obvious conflict of interest that exists. If you do wish to continue working on your draft, then I strongly recommend that you submit it for approval via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. This will give experienced AfC reviewers the chance to evaluate your draft and provide suggestions on how to improve it so that it satisfies Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. Good luck. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Mixed italics and plaincase in article titles
Template:Italic title solves most problems. Template:Italic ship title is designed for ship names like HMS Squirrel (1755) (an example picked at random).

I've just found International Pathogenic Neisseria Conference. The lede is correct: Neisseria is a genus, and should be italicised per MOS:ITAL. Is there a good way of italicising that one word in the middle of the article title? ( wouldn't do at all: (1) it'd look like, and be, a horrible kludge, and (2) it adds parentheses, which in this case would be plain wrong.) Narky Blert (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of adding  to the article in question. Hope that helped. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * When I look at the website for the 2016 conference,, I notice that the conference organizers do not italicize "Neisseria" in the conference title. Our title and its formatting should reflect how reliable sources render the name. Do reliable sources italicize "Neisseria" when discussing this conference by name? If not, why should we? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's a useful tip. I looked at a page of Google results, a good selection of reliable-looking sources. None of them italicises "Neisseria" in the Conference name; I've edited the Wiki article accordingly. Narky Blert (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

RE; Worldcat identifier, Viaf are the wrong numbers belong to another by the same name.
I have an article that requires World Cat indentifer, VIAF No and Musicbrainz numbers added?? This is worse for this article as the World Cat identifier, VIAF listed are not for this band they are for another Fathead which is called Fathead (Brand). The GND has nothing at all to do with this band, its German I will assume (Fathead (Brand)). I placed the information on his band's article talk page as I did not know what else to do with it. Please, would appreciate a template advisors or Admin's help, I am assuming this is why they deleted Authority Control as they did not know how to correct the errors. This article: Fathead_(band) T Heart (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I don't see the problem. I see that you have added authority control to Fathead (band), and all three of the links seem to identify the right Fathead. If there were a problem, then as I explained to you about Gary Kendall, you don't need an administrator or a template expert: the problem would be either that Wikidata has linked the wrong topic (which you can fix in Wikidata) or else (as in the case of Gary Kendall) it would be another organisation outside Wikimedia (Worldcat in the case of Gary Kendall) which had the error. By the way, please use Wikilinks to articles, not URLs. I have altered the one in your question --ColinFine (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I answered on your talk page as you are so wrong I found the right links. I do not know how to use wikilinks, I only know the way I do it now T Heart (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Page review
Hello. I had problems with page references, now i have updated the page. Can the draft be published or if not what should i do then? The link for the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Round_Solutions Neris96 (talk) 27 May 2016 —Preceding undated comment added 11:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . When the article is ready to be resubmitted, you need to pick the "Resubmit" button near the top. But it is not ready yet. You have ignored most of the review comments. You still use abbreviations unknown to most people in the main text; some of your references may be independent and substantial, but I haven't yet found one that is. The thing to realise is that Wikipedia has no interest at all in what Round Solutions or its officers or employees say: none. It follows that an article which is based on an interview or press release is of no value. A Wikipedia article needs to be based almost 100% on what people who have no connection with the subject have written about it and published in reliable places. If nobody has so far thought it worth writing such an article, then the subject is not notable, and no acceptable Wikipedia article can be written on it. To be acceptable, you need to show that there are such sources - two or three would be good (a few high quality references are much better than a large number of poor ones). --ColinFine (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking for someone to review Cyber Leadership Alliance
Hello I would like the information about my new initiative to be reviewed. Can anyone assist? Thank you! 2602:306:337C:C60:583F:E56D:60B1:A95C (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. For starters, the article is entirely unsourced. All information on Wikipedia should be sourced. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Making an article
How do i make an article properly in sandbox ? Pizzaandchips11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Making an article is hard, and I would advise anybody to get some experience improving some of our five million existing articles for a while before trying it. But when you do want to, please read Your first article, which will tell you all you need to know. (What's in your sandbox at present looks weird because you haven't put in the closing }} of the infobox template. But like most people, you have started writing before looking for sources. Don't even think of writing a word until you have found the reliable independent substantial sources that you will base the article on). --ColinFine (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Greetings As  mentioned above about improving existing articles, a good place to find those is at the Community portal, Help out section. The grid there shows nine different types of updates on a variety of articles, and that page is frequently updated. Regards, <span class="plainlinks" style="background: rgba(0,0,0,.05);">— JoeHebda • (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed and would like to have a new try!
Ok, I am new at this I have made a userchange as you told me, I made the article more objective I made everything in my power - and still the article was removed. I want a new try - and to avoid future problems how exactely do I proceed? Or can anyone help me out?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Don_Bennechi Many thanks in advance,

Regina Regina Andersson (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Writing a new article is one of the very hardest things to do on Wikipedia, so it's not surprising that many editors have this frustrating experience. My advice to you is to read Your first article, and follow it. Specifically, do not even think of starting to write the article until you have found several reliable published sources that treat the subject in detail. We're talking major newspapers or magazines, or books from regular publishers. Not Wikis, blogs, or social media; and nothing that comes from Benecchi or his associates, so no articles based on interviews or press releases. We need to know that somebody (maybe a journalist) has thought the subject interesting or important enough to have written at least a few paragraphs about Benecchi, and a reputable publisher has thought it interesting and important enough to have published the piece.
 * Once you have found two or three such sources, the next stage is to forget absolutely everything you know about the subject, and start writing an article based solely on these reliable sources you have found (but in your own words: you must not infringe their copyright). Once you have a reasonable article, you can add uncontroversial factual information from non-independent sources such as his own website, or interviews; but don't put anything at all in that you cannot reference to a reliable published source.
 * I hope this helps. As I said, writing an acceptable Wikipedia article is hard. Good luck. --ColinFine (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Colin! Thank you so much - but still I need to ask, If I for example contact Warner Chappell and get at Discography That is relevant information? Is then the source, like Warner Chappell, a source that I can use? A biography for example - who can ad that? Sicnce I understand that copy an existing one - on a website is not ok? Even with permisson from Bennechi? Photos that exists are the possible to use? The "source question" you say "reliable published sources" - yesterday when the article was deleted I used 2 major newspapers and articles - and it seemed to me that - that was not okey? I used information from the website - it seemed not okey. I used material from publishing company - not okey... So it feels a bit like I am a "prisoner" in all of this :-) I would like to do an article, get it reviewed by someone like you - to understand and have the possibility not to be deleted eash time i do wrong. I await your answers and suggestion - maybe I could "before" mail the draft to someone for correction and help? Thnaks again, Regina Regina Andersson (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Apart from the sources there is the language to consider. Looking at the previous attempt some of it was less than neutral.  Phrases like " the line ... perfectly catches the essense of the song. It reflects the spirit of fighting for what you believe to be true no matter the cost." and image captions like "Don Bennechi looks ahead but is shaded by his past" and  "A result of the past towards something different "today" " do not suggest that the content in neutral in its opinion of the subject.  It might sound boring but just keep it plain. Nthep (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I see, I will of course consider the language. It will be neutral :-) P.s Is it possible to in-mail here? Regina Andersson (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Regina Andersson (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My advice has two parts. First, request to have the second deleted version of the article restored to your user space or to draft space via a request for undeletion.  Second, after working on the article, submit it to Articles for Creation for review rather than moving it back into article space.  If you submit it for review and it is declined, it will not be deleted but only sent back to you for rework.  Also, the second deletion says that you are working for his production company.  Is that true?  If so, you need to make the paid editing disclosure.  Paid editors have a very hard time making their work read neutrally because their thinking is not neutral.  That is my advice.  Request undeletion, use AFC, and make the paid editing disclosure if necessary.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:InterRent REIT
I reviewed Draft:InterRent REIT and declined it as not meeting corporate notability, saying that most of the references appeared to be press releases, which are not considered reliable sources. User:Rjebenoi then wrote on my talk page:

We are requesting a re-review because we feel the press release sources we provided are reliable, as the company is publicly traded and the press releases have been thoroughly vetted.

First, who is "we"? Wikipedia has a policy of "one person, one user account". Second, if you are one person using the first person plural pronoun, it appears that you have a conflict of interest and must make the proper disclosure, and that you may be a paid editor, and must make a stronger disclosure. However, third, Wikipedia is not interested in what a company has written about itself, so much as in what others have written about it. The press releases are what the company has written about itself. If newspapers and magazines have published their own stories about the company based in part on the press releases, and also on their own reporting, they are reliable sources. Do other experienced editors care to comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , a press release may or may not be reliable, but what is certain is that it is not independent, because by definition, it is created by someone with an interest in promoting something. Accordingly, press releases contribute nothing to the notability of the topic, as Wikipedia defines notability. We require significant coverage of the topic in independent, reliable sources. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

How to delete my draft
I realized my Gladiformers draft doesn't have enough information about it and I don't have the film, so I need to delete my draft. Zelda120! (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, . Since you are the only contributor to Draft:Gladiformers, you can request deletion by adding db-author (including the double curly brackets) to the page. An admin will come along and delete it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Four row chess

 * Moved to the top and header added by ColinFine (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

what about four row chess on the chessvariants website..invented by me eric clayton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.109.10 (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . If you want to recommend a change to a particular article, the place to do that is on the article's talk page - in this case Talk:List of chess variants. Please be aware that all information in Wikipedia articles should be cited to a reliable published site, and preferably to a secondary source; so if you invented a variant, it should not be included unless somebody with no connection to you has found it sufficiently interesting and important to publish something about it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Questions
How can my wikipedia account get easy confirmation? Can I write more than one contribution when my account has not been confirmed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barr. Awaji-inyana (talk • contribs) 20:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * By confirmation do you mean registered user with an account or do you mean access to edit semi-protected pages? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't matter. This editor has been active for six days and this was their tenth edit.  They should be autoconfirmed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Comedian OB/sandbox
I reviewed User:Comedian OB/sandbox and declined it as a biography of a non-notable person and as being promotional because it is clearly written to support a comedy career.

Its author Comedian OB then wrote to my talk page:

Hi. You seem to have declined my article based on my not being notable. But if you would take time to Google my name "comedian OB" you would find me very notable in Ghana. That not withstanding, may I ask if I could reference with YouTube videos in order to prove I'm veritable? And could you please state at which point I seemed to be promoting myself so I scrape that portion off? Thank you.

It isn’t up to the reviewer to Google notability of a subject. A draft article should be verifiable in containing references to reliable sources. YouTube is not a reliable source. It is the job of the author of an article to show that the subject is notable in the peculiar Wikipedia sense.

Maybe some other experienced editor will point out where you are promoting yourself, because if I did it, I would be telling you that most of the article is promotional, and you would have nothing left. It doesn’t appear to me to be written in the usual chronological sequence of a biography of a living person. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Material on YouTube can sometimes be considered reliable, - see WP:NOYT - but care needs to be taken. If the video is simply of the comedian performing, then that is not really independent of the topic and so won't contribute to establishing notability in any case. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I will point out that, at least in my opinion, if you ask what part of an autobiography is promotional, you make it clear (as is usually but not always the case with autobiographies) that your intent in having the article accepted is promotional. I personally don't see anything in the sandbox that isn't promotional, but maybe another editor has a different perspective.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

font size in text edit window
Having returned from a vacation of several weeks, I find that some change has occurred and now when I open the source editor, the font in the text box (e.g. this one I am typing in now) is tiny, much much smaller than the rest of the text on the page and so small that I have to crane my neck to read/type. According to, I can set the font in my browser (Chrome in my case) or by fiddling the Edit Area parameter in the Wikipedia preferences but none of this helps (changes other things but not the tiny font size in the edit window). How can I get the edit window readable again? Thanks, Kerry Kerry (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Kerry. I don't know what happend but does it help to clear your entire cache? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Good idea, but it did not change anything. I also cleared my browser cache, just in case that was a problem, but no joy either. You would think there would just be a setting in the Editing Preferences to choose the size of the font. Kerry (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Greetings Without getting into details, there could be three things causing the font size issue.
 * Changes to font defaults in computer's operating system (Windows, Linux, etc).
 * Web browser font settings
 * Wikipedia skin overrides in Preferences, Appearance
 * These are in order of higher to lower, i.e., for number 1: if you open Notepad (or any other plain text editor), are the fonts tiny? If yes, then issue is with font sizes in the OS (windows).
 * For Number 2:Are the fonts too small when browsing to other non-Wikipedia sites?
 * For Number 3:What skin settings & need to remove or add overrides?
 * Hope this helps. Regards, <span class="plainlinks" style="background: rgba(0,0,0,.05);">— JoeHebda • (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Notepad is using a larger more readable font (looks normal to me). Other websites appear as normal to me. The problem only seems to be text edit windows on Wikipedia (visual editor on Wikipedia ia normal). According to my preferences, I am using Vector skin (don't think I've ever changed from the default). To show you what I am seeing, please look at this screenshot of the articles Walter Jervoise Scott in preview mode (as that shows both the article and the text edit window). As can be seen, the font I use to view the article itself is much larger than the font shown for text editing. The other strange thing I just noticed is that in my Editing Preferences, I have columns 80 rows 20 but the text edit window I am being given is much wider and somewhat longer. I changed the value of the columns to 20 and there was no change to the text-edit window - it seems my preferences are being completely overridden by something else. To test this, I logged out of Wikipedia and tried source-editing as an anonymous editor and I get the same tiny font in the text window, so it appears to be nothing to do with my Wikipedia Preference settings. Having just returned from holidays, I know I have not deliberately changed anything in my settings before this problem arose (although I have spent all day fiddling since then). My laptop automatically installed new Windows and Chrome updates on my return from holidays (and I have rebooted since then so those updates should all be fully operational) so there may have been some changes there. Kerry (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Kerry: Try saving this or another size in :

textarea { font-size: 16pt; }
 * PrimeHunter (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

That works! Excellent! Although while it solves my immediate problem, it doesn't entirely explain (to me, at least) why the problem occurred, and whether it is affecting more people than just me. Kerry (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

How do I stop a reference number from appearing in the automatic TOC?
Hi, I have an article with several section, and I use calls to refereces at several points along the text. One of the sections is a list of items and the reference source for the whole section is a single one, so I just put the reference call in the section heading, like this:

It does the trick and the reference number does show in the section name as intended, but it also shows in the automatically generated TOC, which I don’t want. How do I stop this reference number from appearing in the automatic TOC? Garai0316 (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . References do not belong in section headings. If a single reference covers all of the content in a section, then include it in the first sentence of the section, rather than in the section heading itself. Please do not create Teahouse questions with two sections, as that is confusing. It seems that you are drafting Spanish language content. This is the English Wikipedia. Please draft Spanish content on the Spanish Wikipedia. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer Cullen. If the first sentence of the section is just an item of a list, does it still make sense to include the reference in that item? Garai0316 (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You can always add an introductory sentence to the section, summarizing what follows, and add your reference to that sentence, . But the reference does not belong in the section heading. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Garai0316 (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * By the way, thanks for adding the code using and tags. I should've used that to avoid creating a new section involuntarily. Garai0316 (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Can I browse Wikipedia going from one article to the next one in the order they're organized, meaning alphabetically?
Can I browse Wikipedia going from one article to the next one in the order they're organized, meaning alphabetically?181.23.11.96 (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You could read through the good articles that way, but that's over 24,000 articles. There's Special:AllPages, if you've got eternity. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)