Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 490

How many sources is too many?
Is it desirable to have multiple sources saying the same thing? I’m not sure where to look in project space for that one. I came across an article citing four sources for four different claims, and two of those sources could each verify everything. It struck me as not best practice, but like I said, I wasn’t sure where to look for guidance. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Read WP:BOMBARD and WP:CITEKILL in providing too many citations, sometimes to overcome for the subject being of marginal notability. Not having seen the article, I can't comment further.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm unaware of a clear policy on this, but Citation overkill has some advice. If you are looking to trim the number of references in an article, it probably makes most sense to take source quality into account and remove any less reliable ones first, rather than focusing solely on the number of sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is my thinking: If the assertion is relatively uncontroversial, then a single source is sufficient. If the assertion is counter-intuitive or highly controversial, then citing several highly reliable sources is good practice. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My initial thoughts were along those lines,, but re-reading the IP's question, it seems that we're not talking about multiple sources supporting the same claim, but one source for each of four claims, when those claims could be sourced to a smaller number of the references. It would help to know what article the IP has in mind, as Robert says. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I get your point, . Of course, we could be much more specific if we knew which article is being discussed. Here is a possibility: Assuming that it is a short new article about a truly notable topic, then the presence of four solid sources devoting significant coverage to the topic serves as an "insurance policy" making notability clear to any reviewer, and thereby protecting the article from a deletion attempt. Those factors go through the minds of editors. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at the IP's contributions, I presume that we are talking about OmniBus (video game), per Talk:OmniBus (video game). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was what inspired this question, particularly the second half of the second paragraph of OmniBus (video game). If I was mistaken in anything said in that discussion, then please, please correct me. But WP:Citation overkill seems about right, with misapplied(?) citations. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that this is now being discussed on the article's talk page, which is the appropriate venue. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I got my account yesterday and people keep deleting my articles I put up. How do I resolve this?
I am part of a rap group and I need recognization of who I am2601:194:C000:9825:CC9E:9EF6:D1DD:C580 (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As with any article, the subject needs to meet our guidelines as to why it is notable. In this case, you may want to look at WP:BAND to see what a musical act needs to meet to have an article. Also, Wikipedia is not to promote who you are. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I suggest using Articles for creation to create a draft of any new article, so that you can get helpful feedback without the risk of deletion. However, you should be motivated by a desire to contribute to the encyclopedia rather than to achieve recognition. If the latter is what you seek, I would suggest looking elsewhere. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Two points:
 * Wikipedia is not a social-media website. It's not for advertising. Please read Conflict of interest.
 * Please sign your talk page posts and comments (not article pages or edits) with four tildes, like this:  ~ . The wiki software will turn that into your user name, linked to your user page and talk page, with a date-time stamp, like mine: Thnidu (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you or your group needs recognition, I humbly suggest you accomplish that before starting a Wikipedia article about yourselves. That’ll make it much easier to create a well-sourced article. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

edited page of an individual who has "cleansed" history
hi - i am aware of a "prominent" individual with a spurious past who seems to have had significant reedit of her page, which now has no reference to the cited court cases against her etc. this individual is highly litigious and tries to prevent free speech through aggressive legal practices. Wikipedia should reflect the background of the individual not what the individual wants us to see. I am unsure if this section is in the public domain, but i would like to have a wiki expert review the profile in more detail and to give me thee view as to whether this is a fair editing of her profile. How do i pass the name in question to you for review ? i can be contacted on head_hunt@Hotmail best regards 82.110.77.147 (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read our policies on biographies, specifically WP:BLP. Wikipedia takes a risk averse approach to BLP and only publishes material found in reliable secondary sources per WP:RS.  We are not in the business of exposing people, especially if information is not readily in the public domain.  Sounds like the material you have is not something Wikipedia would be interested in hosting.  Regards, WCM email 11:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi 82.110.77.147. In addition, to what posted above, let me add that Wikipedia is not really the place to try and right great wrongs. Wikipedia articles are only intended to reflect what reliable sources have said about the topic; they are not intended to reflect what you, I or any other editor feels deserves to be seen by others. So, if this person has done the things that you claim she has done and this has been covered in reliable sources, then it might be possible to add such information to the article. I say might because we as editors do not own the articles we edit and any content we add can be removed by another editor if there's a good policy/guideline reason for doing so. The type of content you're referring to sounds like it something which might be challenged by other editors per WP:UNDUE, etc. So, with that in mind, I suggest you try discussing this on the relevant article's talk page first to see if there's a consensus to add such information. There's nothing wrong with being bold per se, but Wikipedia means collaborating with others so sometimes it helps to be a little cautious instead. As WCM also posted above, discussions about living people are subject to WP:BLP, and this includes discussions anywhere on Wikipedia. So, you'll save yourself lots of trouble if you simply try to discuss this person as neutrally as possible. Just stick to discussing on what reliable sources have said about her and how Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines apply. If, however, your comments are more personal and accusatory, you'll quickly find the Wikipedia community's focus shifting from the article to your behavior. Try to remember that article talk pages are intended to be places for discussing specific ways to improve articles; they are not online forums for posting personal opinions, gossip or other similar types of comments. As long as you follow Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, you should be OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Book covers.
The drafts Draft:Percy Jackson's Greek Heroes and Draft:The Hidden Oracle need the cover illustration of the book. I purchased both of the books. Here is my question: If I placed my book on a scanner, scanned it in good condition, then cropped it and uploaded it on WP, would that be a free image/okay? Thank you. → The Pancake of Heaven!  08:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Uploading the image is ok but it would not be a free image as you are not the copyright holder of the original artwork. You hold the copyright on the picture/scan but not what the picture shows.  In this case you can upload the picture under a free licence like cc-by-sa-4.0 but you would have to also add a non-free use rationale template like Non-free book cover to cover the depiction of the book cover.  Sounds horrendously bureaucratic I know but that's the problem with dealing with not only US copyright law but other jurisdictions as well.  Oh and one final problem - non free images can't be used on draft articles, so you need to wait until the articles are published and then add the images. Nthep (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * waah, You've made an awesome signature! :) - Invisible ( Talk ) 08:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! → The Pancake of Heaven!  08:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Correction to 's otherwise correct message: Photocopies are not entiteled to a copyright that would be separate from that of the original work. That's because a photocopy contains no originality and adds nothing to the original cover artwork. See c:COM:SCAN. doesn't need to license the photocopy in any way; a simple non-free tag suffices. This case would be a whole other story if the original artwork was three-dimensional, because photographing three-dimensional objects necessarily contains creativity in the form of choice of lighting, angle, etc. Even a book cover would be considered a three-dimensional object if you photographed it from a distance in a way that both the cover and the spine are visible. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This made me wonder, on the question of 3 dimensional objects, does a stylized cover with raised lettering or the like (becoming more and more common) count as three-dimensional artwork, and thus call for more than a simple non-free tag?Starglow42 (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Rick Singh Wikipedia Resubmission
Hello, I was wondering about references and credibility with a current page I am working on for a client of mine. This is my first time creating a wikipedia page and the last editor who reviewed and denied my first submission noted "credibility issues", however when I searched other political figures I noticed some had references which led to 404 broken links. Ricksinghocpa (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to have declared the paid editing; see WP:paid editing and also WP:conflict of interest. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Please read the conflict of interest policy (as requested above) and the paid editing policy. Then please read the notability policy.  I didn't decline your draft on grounds of "credibility issues", but "notability issues", which has a specific meaning in Wikipedia that is not obvious.  It meant that you didn't establish that other independent reliable sources had given publicity to him.  It does help in Wikipedia to use the jargon correctly.  It also helps to play by the rules, and the rule about paid editing is a very important rule.  You should declare your paid editing before making any more edits so that you don't get blocked as an undisclosed paid editor.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As to other politicians, read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which means that just because they have bad articles doesn't mean that you can submit a bad article (although you may in some cases tag their articles for deletion). Also read political notability guidelines and you will see that he is not in the sort of office that gives him ipso facto notability (such as being a State Senator would), so that he has to depend on general notability guidelines.  I don't know if the other politicians are ipso facto notable.  In any case, declare your status.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Ricksinghocpa, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm guessing this is about Draft:Rick Singh. The reviewer accidentally left out a bit of code ( ---> ) which made your draft appear blank. I've fixed that. The reviewer mentioned notability issues, not "credibility" issues. I'm afraid this won't really pass the criteria at Notability (people) or the alternative criteria at POLITICIAN. The local office he holds is too minor to qualify as a politician per se in the absence of in-depth significant coverage in sources which are completely independent of him. All the references are to sites associated with him, apart from one article in the local paper on how he replaced his office's fleet cars with Prius hybrids. That's simply not enough. Since you are writing this for a client, if you intend to keep working on the draft, you need to read very carefully Paid-contribution disclosure and make sure you comply with that policy. You should also read Conflict of interest. One of the reasons that editing with a conflict of interest is so strongly discouraged on Wikipedia is that it is virtually impossible to write a neutral article or to even see the problematic promotional language and CV-padding, something which is very obvious to a neutral observer. In addition to the notability issues, I'm afraid that the draft in its present state simply reads like an advertisement/press release for him, e.g "returned a historic amount of $550 million dollars to the Orange County tax base", describing a very minor award given to his office for migrating their computer systems successfully as "prestigious", etc. I wish I had better news for you, but it's best to be realistic about the chances of this draft ever being accepted. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Tom Melia
Can you help?

89.240.197.52 (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, possibly. I can't see what content you put in Draft:Tom Melia before it was deleted, as I am not an administrator; but if it was anything like the edits you made to Ottery St Mary and FC Barcelona, it was entirely appropriate to delete it. The help I will give you is that if you want to help us improve the encyclopaedia, you will be welcome here, but if all you are going to do is play childish games, then you are not. --ColinFine (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

How do I create the big blue boxes at the right hand side of the page?
How do I create those big blue boxes? They'll contain details about the matter, for example if it was a band it would contain where they formed, members, genre's, years active etc and a picture of the band, etc. Found on the nright hand side of the page.Gavin1208 (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . They are called Infoboxes - there are many different ones for different kinds of articles. You can find out more about them at Help:Infobox; but my suggestion is to edit (or 'view source') another article on a similar subject which already has the infobox, and copy everything from '' into the article you are working on; and then change the data in it as appropriate for your article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Brand New to Wikipedia Editing - lots of (probably quite simple) questions!
Hi teahouse, this is a great find as I have been struggling over seemingly trivial edits to a page I am creating.

Here goes: 1. On the personal infobox (it is a biographical page) I am trying to get the date to read 'August 17, 1983' but it keeps coming up '1983-08-17' 2. Also on the personal infobox I would like to link certain elements (such as place of birth). How do I do this? 3. Again on personal infobox the photo file name is showing underneath the thumbnail image --> will this still happen when it goes live? I would like to caption the photo, but not the filename 4. I am also trying to hyperlink just one thing to the company website (as there isn't a wiki), but can't figure out how

Actually I think that's it for now, but undoubtedly there will be more. C.g.huston (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi C.g.huston to answer your questions:-
 * If you enter 1983-08-17 it will come up as that, you have removed the parameter from Template:Infobox person, it should be August 17, 1983
 * See Manual of Style/Linking - use double square brackets as Text
 * Do not use thumb parameters in infoboxes - it should be Jackie fast.jpg
 * Hyperlinks use single square brackets - but is this about the company, or the person?
 * However the infobox is the least of your problems. The text is written in a very promotional manner, e.g. "Fast's innovative and disruptive approach" which is "PR speak" and unsuitable for a Wikipedia article, and you have cited no references whatsoever. Please ensure that Jackie Fast is notable in Wikipedia's meaning of the word, and demonstrate that with reliable, independent sources, or your article will simply be rejected. - Arjayay (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks User:Arjayay!


 * The formatting was helpful, and yes I am working through all of the references as there is quite a lot to go through. I read through all the notable information previously and feel that she certainly qualifies, but I do understand that I may need to revise some of the info even after adding all related references.C.g.huston (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

how
how it works?(\Fd&#59;js&#59;lkjdlfkjs&#59;ldkjf (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about Wikipedia we can help you with? Mz7 (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

submission declined
Hi, i am new to wikipedia, i wanted to add a page about a company which was established a few years back. I heard about the company a few months back on my visit to Chandigarh IT park. I visited their office and i felt good about the startup culture being penetrating in India. And then I thought it should be on wikipedia. Could you please let me know about the improvements to be made, so that it will not get declined again?

thanks

ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ellenfan/sandbox Ellenfan (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been declined as a duplicate of Draft:Code Brew Labs, . That draft appears to have been created by another editor, which is odd given that the content is the same - unless you are using more than one account? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Editor bias and vandalism
I have noticed that one Wikipedia write up on the history of a neighborhood includes wrong information, wrong historic dates, wrong associations and in some cases, unreferenced information. The problem seems to be that one long time Wikipedia member keeps reverting the information to his/her original writeup, regardless of how well documented the correct writeup is (which comes from a group of historians). The individual making the constant reversions claims in the reversion "unsourced speculation, synthesis, etc" and also claims that the page has a permanent unchanged link. It would seem that the editor does not his/her work updated or changed.

Questions:  How to get administration review and how to change an alleged "permanent link"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Donald (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * First, this appears to be a content dispute. It is not a good idea to use the word "vandalism" to refer to an edit with which you disagree.  Even if you are "right", you will be seen as "wrong" by shouting "vandalism" to "win" a content dispute, which is a way to lose.  You don't say what article you have the issue with.  Read the dispute resolution policy.  Discuss on the article talk page.  If that does not work, follow any of the procedures listed in the policy.  As to the link question, I will have to look at the article.  I don't know what is meant here by a "permanent link".  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, perhaps I did not express myself accurately. I have never posted to the page in question, nor have I ever used the word "vandalism".   I am doing historic research on several communities in Brooklyn including the one in question and I noticed after clicking on "view history" that the deleted updates are in fact correct.   I had planned to make similar updates myself, but I can see that any such updates will be reverted by the censor.  It would seem that the long term editor uses the term "vandalism" when changes are made that he/she does not agree with and then goes on to write things such as  "unsourced speculation, synthesis, etc".  It would seem that the editor does not want change or updated accuracy.   Could you explain in detail how to ask for administrative review?  Also I tend to go to original printed sources in books and directories only found in libraries but I notice that almost all references are to on-line websites or on-line versions of current publications.  Many of the original historic references are in print form only.  It it acceptable to provide the book name, and page for the reference?
 * Please do not state nor have I ever used the word "vandalism". when the header (that you typed) for this thread reads Editor bias and vandalism. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the use of the term, by an editor as the reason for reverting an article on Wikipedia entry and addressing the comment above my response. The editor in the page in question used those unwarranted terms. Also I tend to go to original printed sources in books and directories only found in libraries but I notice that almost all references are to on-line websites or on-line versions of current publications.  Many of the original historic references are in print form only.  It it acceptable to provide the book name, and page for the reference? Professor Donald (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to address this abstractly. Could you simply provide a link to the article in question so we can see what you are talking about? Liz  Read! Talk! 18:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To answer your question about print sources, Donald, yes it is completely acceptable to use print sources and cite them by giving bibliographical information (author, year, name of the work, publisher, ISBN, page number), see Wikipedia's policy on source access. Oftentimes it is print sources that provide the most comprehensive and reliable information. Alas, many times Wikipedia editors tend to be lazy when it comes to locating the best (versus the most accessible) sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We try to be as friendly as we can to new editors. However, you aren't making things easy for us.  You aren't saying what article or articles are in question.  If you are only saying that another editor reverted previous edits with an edit summary of "revert vandalism", they may have been reverting vandalism.  You say that an editor is biased and you refer to them as a "censor".  Without knowing what article it is, there is no way that we can comment other than to tell you, as we did, to read the dispute resolution policy and discuss on the article talk page.  Looking at your edit history, you haven't discussed on article talk pages.  You did get one series of edits reverted, but not as vandalism.  It is permitted to use books in libraries.  If so, it is a good idea to use their ISBN numbers.  You continue to ask about "administrative review", but we don't know what you are asking about.  Please.  Please.  If you have questions about an article, ask questions.  All that we can tell is that you appear to be angry, and we don't know what you are angry about.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite simply, you can post to WP:ANI to request administrative intervention. But know that if your own actions are improper, it may WP:BOOMERANG back onto you. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

why is this getting rejected, person is part of a band- two others in it are listed individually on Wikipedia
Hi, I have been working for the past 6 months: Walshy Fire this a submission that is for a public figure, Walshy Fire- he is part of the band Major Lazer. Major Lazer has two other members- Diplo and Jillionaire, each of whom have their own Wikipedia pages. This page I am working on keeps getting rejected for this person not being "notable" and not enough citations. We have many citations from notable sources on this person in the draft and his part in Major Lazer and as a solo DJ just like his two bandmates. I am having a hard time grasping how he could be denied and the others could be allowed, one of the others has far less citations than Walshy Fire does. Amadoriartists (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. I haven't looked at your draft and the other articles (it helps if you provide links to articles that you are referring to), but on a general level, new drafts are held to a relatively high standard, whereas older articles might not have been through the draft review process, and so might not meet the same high standards. The advantage of submitting a draft is that, once accepted, it is unlikely to be deleted, whereas an article created directly is at risk of that fate if it does not come up to standard. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * OK here is the draft - I hope what you are saying is that this piece when it is accepted - is going to remain on Wikipedia. Its been since February that I have been trying:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Walshy_Fire

thanks for your help Amadoriartists (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * other articles are: Diplo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplo

Jillionaire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jillionaire

as members of

Major Lazer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Lazer

just as Walshy Fire is a member of Major Lazer Amadoriartists (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Some comments on Draft:Walshy Fire. You need references to reliable independent published sources, with significant discussion of the subject, to establish notability. Looking through the references: 1 mentions him twice, without significant discussion. 2, 4, and 6 are interviews with him, and so not independent. 3, 8 and 9 seem to me sufficient to establish notability. 5 and 7 merely mention him. 10 does little more than mention him. The draft will be judged on its own merits; I haven't looked at Diplo and Jillionaire, and they are not relevant to whether your draft gets accepted. Maproom (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I will comment that the last time before this one that you resubmitted the draft, you resubmitted it exactly as it had been when it was previously declined. Perhaps you were hoping to get an easier reviewer on resubmission, but reviewers do look at the review history, and it annoys the reviewers if a draft is resubmitted with no changes since the last submission.  I see that you now have made changes to the draft, but they seem to consist mostly of deletions (maybe of common material about the band).  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I deleted things that appeared to be too much like marketing- as the music wikipedia hints say that you should not be promoting as much as listing facts. I deleted all the mix tapes and remixes that were listed.  the citations should really suffice for this these are all legitimate citations.  I resubmitted it with the changes - I dont really know what to do at this point if it gets rejected again, it makes no sense to me that he would be singled out as not "notable"  its irrational....he's the front man for Major Lazer he's extremely notable globally.  These citations are now what should suffice, perhaps.

Amadoriartists (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * also are you suggesting that I actually remove the interviews?

Amadoriartists (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A quick search indicates to me that Walshy Fire is notable. I am an old guy and when researching popular music topics, I go first to Rolling Stone magazine, where I found him discussed in many articles. The introduction to the Spin magazine interview is quite significant. I easily found coverage in many online music publications and assume that a good percentage are reliable sources. And just today, he was discussed in Forbes magazine of all places, regarding an upcoming collaboration with Justin Bieber. Major Lazer is a worldwide success, and we ought to have a biography of their front man. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Quoting Maproom above: "[references] 3, 8 and 9 seem to me sufficient to establish notability." I agree. Number 3, particularly—an interview in national music magazine Spin, with Mr. Fire's name in the headline—is very convincing. Even the gossipy item in Vibe establishes Walshy Fire as a person of note in the music business. Mr. Fire is a main contributor to a major, Billboard Chart-topping band. I don't understand the reluctance to publish. Jmatazzoni (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As per discussion above, I attempted to accept the article. Since there currently is a redirect to the group, I had to request an uncontroversial technical move over the redirect.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Translate an article from german
Hello, I wrote an article about the technical basics of a high speed tubular centrifuge in the german wikipedia. A friend in the US pleased me to translate it and publish it in the english wikipedia. Do you have a guideline for me how to proceede? The article in german is named "Röhrenzentrifuge". Thanks in advance, Thomas CepaZentrifugen (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse.. You'll find advice at WP:Translation. To link to the German article in your question, de:Röhrenzentrifuge renders as de:Röhrenzentrifuge. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me know if I can be of any assistance. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Patrolling new pages
Hello

I just wanna know if I'm eligible for patrolling new pages or not; How much contributions, or experience does it require? - IN VISIBLE knock! 08:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC) Please see New pages patrol which suggests an absolute minimum of 500 mainspace edits and at least 90 days editing. You have been an editor for over 90 days, but I have looked at your contributions here - (which may take some time to load). Although you have 1243 edits, 140 have been deleted and only 377 are to "mainspace" i.e. to articles, whereas 279 are to your User pages and 372 are to User talk pages - You therefore need to spend considerably more time editing articles, before you reach that "absolute minimum" - Arjayay (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Invisible Guy
 * deleted? I've requested many articles for deletion(CSD), Does it include them? - IN VISIBLE knock! 09:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Invisible Guy - It will include all the edits you made on a page that has then been deleted (but not edits to a page that remains where the edits were reverted or deleted) be they "good" edits like a CSD nomination, or "bad" edits like creating and editing such pages - your edit count cannot differentiate between them. I have 3,200 deleted edits, predominantly CSD nominations and clean-up tags. - Arjayay (talk) 10:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Possible error in wiki page for Air Côte d'Ivoire
Could someone please change this page so it actually displays:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Côte_d'Ivoire

It doesn't seem to work - maybe because there's a single quote ie apostrophe in the wiki page title.

Thanks

86.12.65.216 (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To me the article displays. Can you explain what you see when you look at the page. -- GB fan 13:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It also works for me. Maybe your browser has a problem with one of the characters in the url. Can you see it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_C%C3%B4te_d%27Ivoire? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much to you both. Nothing was displayed on the page but yes, when I use Chrome, it displays OK. I was using the old (v12) version of Opera (which is nice to use whenever possible). Maybe the page should also work in old browsers, in which case .....

I did search the problem and found a reference to WikiMedia not liking an apostrophe in the page title. Even if that is true, I couldn't find a way to edit the page title. Maybe the apostrophe needs to be escaped with a backslash ? Could you possibly point out how to edit the page title ?

Sorry to be such a newbie and many thanks again. I am beginning to make a few corrections to wiki pages, so maybe I'd better register. 86.12.65.216 (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have tested Opera 12.17 on Windows Vista 32-bit and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Côte_d'Ivoire is also blank for me. Many but not all titles with an apostrophe are blank. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Connor works. If any query string is added to a broken title then it works for me, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Côte_d'Ivoire?q. I also get blank pages for many non-existing titles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R'e. I guess this is about T106793. Registered users can move pages to a new title when the account is four days old and has made ten edits, but we shouldn't do that to work around a problem with one old browser with few users. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Many thanks PrimeHunter. Very useful. I have now registered so maybe I'll ask for a page move on the basis that having an apostrophe seems to go against the naming rules.

Glenbower (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Editing while not logged in
I suspect an editor is avoiding 3RR by editing while not logged in. Is there a way of checking whether an editor has made an edit when not logged in? Where do I report this or get it investigated? Thanks in advance for the advice. DrChrissy (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC) To avoid boomerangs, I think you should start by trying to resolve this on the article's talk page, which, so far, has never been edited. - Arjayay (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi DrChrissy I assume your talking about List of animals culled in zoos - you need to take it to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - KylieTastic (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , and yes, in serious cases checkusers have the ability to check if two or more accounts (or and account and an IP address) are connected. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. Is potentially avoiding 3RR serious enough to request a checkuser investigation?  The user has no other bans, but I am suspicious this editing is an attempt to hound me. DrChrissy (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Arjayay. I fear this is exactly what the user is trying to do - push me to a noticeboard where a boomerang would be swiftly dispatched.  This user edits almost exclusively on noticeboards and Talk pages and I have found no evidence of animal related content editing on their part.  Why would they suddenly start editing there? (rhetorical question)   In my "defence", 2 of my edit summaries contained a request that the user take their concerns to the Talk page. DrChrissy (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To explain that further, if you tried to report the user for breaking 3RR at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring you would find the report form includes:-
 * - Arjayay (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * An excellent point. Thanks. Am I under any requirement to report the single purpose account as a potential sockpuppet? DrChrissy (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A checkuser will not connect an IP to a user on Wiki. If you created an SPI on the user and requested Checkuser it will not happen.  You can use the duck test to connect them though.  -- GB fan 16:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought checkuser could at least determine a similar location? DrChrissy (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought checkuser could at least determine a similar location? DrChrissy (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi DrChrissy looking again at the edit summaries (not the place to have a discussion, should have moved to the talk page) the problem would appear to be the article title. 'Culled' is an emotive term that is going to cause issues with some, and does not appear to be a good fit for all the list contents, maybe a move to another title would be useful to consider. KylieTastic (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree entirely and have been considering opening up this discussion. To me "euthanasia" means "killing with kindness".  It is about the method used to kill and not the reason for the killing.  To me, "culling" means segregation, not necessarily killing.  However, I understand entirely that others see these differently. DrChrissy (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For information, I have now opened discussion about the scope of the article on the talk page. DrChrissy (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You have already launched the boomerang. You are guilty of edit warring. You have not discussed the issue on the article's talk page. You are clearly wrong, the gorilla was not "culled". I suggest you back off quickly, and keep your head down. Maproom (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is outrageous! This is supposed to be the "friendly" place to seek advice, not some form of pseudo-ANI. If you are convinced I have been edit warring, I suggest you take this to the appropriate noticeboard.  Otherwise, you might be reported for casting aspersions.  Your comment about culling does not belong here - it belongs on the Talk page and makes it impossible for me to AGF.  FYI, I had already backed off until you came to stir things up again. DrChrissy (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

, I haven't looked into the specific case, but the Teahouse is generally oriented towards new editors, whereas you have been editing for more than five years. Presumably you are aware of the need to discuss disputes on talk pages? If you need help and advice about how to proceed in a dispute, you might be better asking at Help desk than here. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that advice. I had not realised the Teahouse was oriented to new editors.  I will use the Helpdesk in future. DrChrissy (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Your original question was a type of question that wouldn't have gotten a friendly reception at the WP:Help Desk either.  Some editors at the Help Desk are wary of being asked vaguely worded questions, and yours was such a question.  Editors often come to the Help Desk with a vague question, often in order to get a statement that they can use to wikilawyer an argument in their favor.  Unfortunately, that does seem to be what you did, to get a "legal opinion" that the editing from an IP address was sockpuppetry.  The fact that you state that you knew that the Teahouse is supposed to be friendly, and that you didn't know that it is supposed to be friendly to new editors, further looks to some of us like forum shopping.  In any case, discuss on the article talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Robert, please WP:AGF. I was concerned that an editor who had not edited at a page before made 3 reverts and then a brand new account made exactly the same revert.  At the time, I was very suspicious this new account had been set up deliberately to avoid violating 3RR.  However, I have never asked for an investigation of sockpuppetry/editing while not logged in before and I was unsure of where and how I should ask. My question might appear vague.  If it was, it is because I was being extremely cautious and hoping to get an answer without naming the editor or the page.  This is because I am aware that any accusation of sockpuppetry is a very serious one. I was not wikilawering - I was simply asking the Teahouse where I should go to do this - I was not seeking an opinion of anyone on this page.  Regarding your accusation of Forumshopping.  Again, please AGF.  This was my first and only thread regarding the subject, so I would hardly call it forum shopping. Furthermore, please AGF regarding my knowledge of the operation of the Teahouse.  I have just found that it is stated to for "new editors" here which is a page I have not seen before, but it is not stated to editors making a post to this page. This page states only Welcome to the Teahouse! A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia. Perhaps that should be changed.  What is ironic is that both emphasise the Teahouse is a friendly place - I am afraid Robert, your posting has just turned it into an unfriendly place. DrChrissy (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * , welcome to the Teahouse. Unless it's really quite obvious, logged-out sock puppetry is unfortunately not that easy to verify. CheckUsers will avoid linking IP addresses to usernames 999 times out of every 1000 cases – something to do with the privacy policy, I think. If I suspected that someone was editing logged out to circumvent 3RR, I would try WP:AGF first and assume they did it by accident: sometimes, especially when you're editing from a mobile device, you don't realize you've logged out. Instead of going straight to the admin boards, I would go to either the IP address's talk page or the talk page of the user whom you suspect is logged out and shoot them a friendly message asking if they accidentally logged out. If they did, chances are that they'll self-trout and apologize. If they didn't, then move on and treat it like it's an IP user who just happened to contribute. This isn't supposed to be a battlefield, so I would focus on discussing the content. The time I would report to WP:ANI or WP:SPI is if I notice a pattern developing – IP editors suddenly popping up whenever one user gets involved in a dispute. Even then, it's a hard thing to prove, unfortunately. The best advice, in my view, is to just focus on discussing content. I hope this helps. Mz7 (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent advice. Thank you. It helps very much. DrChrissy (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Old company page that needs updating...
Hello! I have no experience of editing Wikipedia or updating pages. The company I work for has a page that someone else set up years ago, but this is now out of date and the logo needs updating. I now need to be the person who "officially" maintains this page, but I'm not sure how to go about this. I have my own login, the login details of the person who originally created the page are not available to me. Can I be the official administrator of our corporate page without these original login details, or is this the only way to take this forward? I'm planning on going through all of the training material on how to edit, etc., but I want to make sure I have the correct level/type of login before any editing is attempted. Or doesn't it matter? Many thanks for your help and guidance! 80.175.14.29 (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, IP user. Welcome to the Teahouse: thank you for coming here and asking. The answer is that you may not be the "official administrator of our corporate page" - because first, there is no such role, and secondly, it is not your company's page. Nobody owns, or is the administrator for, any Wikipedia article. It Wikipedia's article about your company; and among all the people in the world who may edit it, you are one of the people who is discouraged from doing so because of your conflict of interest.
 * However, having said that, you are very welcome to make suggestions for improving the article, on the article's talk page. The more specific you make them, and the more you provide reliable published sources for them - preferably sources that are independent of the company - the more likely it is that somebody will pick up your suggestions and apply them, or at least make their own edits based on them. It is worth adding edit request (with the double curly brackets) to your contribution on the talk page, as that will put it on a list of requested edits that some editors look at.
 * As for your account: corporate and shared accounts are absolutely forbidden, so having your own personal account is exactly the right thing to do. The previous account should be used by the person who previously used it, and nobody else.
 * A couple of other things to note: You haven't told us your user name, but note that it should not suggest that you are editing on behalf of the company (It can be something like "Fred at Company name", but not like "Company name" or "Company name PR dept"); and if you are employed by the company and intend to do anything with the article about the company, you need to declare the fact according to the policy on paid editing. --ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Happened upon a company editing their own page
I know effectively nothing about Wikipedia (the editing side of things, at least); the conflict of interest policy as far as I could tell states that it is not necessarily a problem, but that it often is, and I do not know enough to be able to figure that out.

I happened to note that both 208.81.212.222 and 208.81.212.224 have made edits to Global Relay, and 208.81.212.0/22 (which includes both IPs) is registered to Global Relay Communications Inc. according to whois data.

None of said edits seem problematic to me; that being said, I know next to nothing about how things are done here, so I would prefer to leave it in the hands of someone who has some vague clue as to what to do. I don't want to step on people's toes, but I don't want to just ignore it either.

Hence: what, if anything, should be done about this?

23.16.5.193 (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, welcome to the Teahouse! Thank you for letting us know about this. Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged because those with a personal/professional connection to a subject matter often have a distorted view of the subject – they might perhaps unconsciously omit negative details about a subject they have an interest in promoting, which may be contrary to our neutral point of view policy, which states essentially that articles must present all significant viewpoints of a subject fairly and without bias. Now, although editing with a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged, it is not outright prohibited. Here, because the edits didn't really add content (they made a few general style/typographical fixes), you're right that they weren't too problematic. Furthermore, they were made several months ago, so I think the matter is sufficiently stale that no action is needed at this time. By the way, if you are at all interested in learning more about "the editing side of things" here, check out our tutorial on editing. If you see anything else, feel free to let us know or ask at this Teahouse. Mz7 (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

What is an in-lined citation and how to add that in my article.
I just created my article Muhammad Safdar Awan yesterday and received the following message today: This article uses bare URLs for citations, which may be threatened by link rot. Please consider adding full citations so that the article remains verifiable. Several templates and the reFill tool are available to assist in formatting. (reFill documentation) (May 2016) It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: Seems like a WP:COATRACK for the Panama Papers controversy

If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming, or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it.

The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days, i.e., after 03:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC). If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the deletion policy.

Nominator: Please consider notifying the author/project: == Proposed deletion of Muhammad Safdar Awan ==

The article Muhammad Safdar Awan has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Seems like a WP:COATRACK for the Panama Papers controversy

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.. Since I'm a beginner, I have no idea about it. Kindly help meAymanKhan541 (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . The messages at the top of the article have several blue links, which will take you to pages which explain what they mean. To answer your question about references, what we need for a reference is information that will allow a reader to find the source any time - now, or next week or next month or next year. Providing a URL is a helpful convenience, but websites do sometimes get moved, or taken down. WHat is needed is information like title, author, date of publication, publisher. Please see Referencing for beginners for more information.
 * Most of the message you have reproduced above was a Proposed deletion, where another editor thought that the article was inappropriate. I disagree with them, and have removed that message. --ColinFine (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the format for years?
The main topic page is regarding List of conflicts in Angola. For example in the section of List of conflicts in Angola, there is excessive use of C.E., which is common era. Plus, there is a comma in the years. My first instinct is to delete the commas in the dates and remove the "C.E." but I believe that maybe acceptable. What is the correct format? TheDwellerCamp (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. Admittedly, I wasn't sure of this off the top of my head, so I looked up our conventions regarding this at Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, and the "Era style" section says that In general, do not use CE or AD unless required to avoid ambiguity or awkwardness. So ultimately, it's up to your own editorial judgment whether the "C.E." is necessary to avoid ambiguity/awkwardness. I definitely agree that the commas should be removed. Personally, I also agree that the "C.E."s are excessive and unnecessary – I would remove them too. Mz7 (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, thank you for the replay. TheDwellerCamp (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Advice on new article flagged for deletion
Hi, I recently created my first non-scientist article, about a political candidate/community advocate Alexandra_Kaur_Bhathal who has been in the media recently. It was published after three (helpful) rounds of review, but has now been flagged for deletion because the article is about a political candidate.

I had created the article because, as a resident in the electorate, I couldn't find an aggregated summary of the information (eg policies, heritage, profession) that had been in numerous news articles over many years Bhathal has been a prominent voice and notable repeat political contender in our community. Bhathal is mentioned on a number of Wikipedia pages which I have begun linking to the article.

I'm not affiliated with any political party and I think the article is written factually (and has been through three reviews before being accepted for publication) and copiously references unbiased, non partisan sources (and there have been more articles recently, eg https://theconversation.com/election-podcast-the-greens-fight-for-batman-and-wills-60340 and http://www.theaustralian.com.au/federal-election-2016/federal-election-2016-feeney-would-have-lost-without-lib-help/news-story/fb3bf78052aa5a5006bef4ac6b41a363 - does that give it a chance to escape deletion?

(Also, there are many other articles for political candidates that seem to be less widely referenced and more promotional than mine: Henry_A._Moehlenpah, Beki_Adam, Monty_Goldman, Lauren_Southern, Dakta_Green, Jim_Rogers_(Oklahoma_politician), Jill_Ovens, Pedyr_Prior .... do these set a precedent for retention or is there a subtlety I don't understand?)

Thanks for your advice Vsolomon (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles on political candidates are difficult to keep from being deleted on Wikipedia. Merely running for office is not enough, and that's often the only coverage that they get.  The best way to save an article about a political candidate is to show coverage of them from outside the election cycle.  The election itself is considered the notable event, not the candidates who run in it.  As far as your other question, there are no precedents on Wikipedia.  Instead, we operate through consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * @NinjaRobotPirate Thanks for the explanation. If it gets deleted I will keep this idea in mind for after the election (unless she is elected in which case the point will be moot!) Vsolomon (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * please read the deletion discussion. There's some good advice there: keep a copy of the current article in case she wins an election; and use "Alex Bhathal" as the article title, as that's the name she's usually known by. Maproom (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Could I rate/ change the rating of an wiki article's class, importance, etc?
Suppose an wiki article is already rated as low importance, but i think it should be upgraded as mid importance. could i do that? if not, then could i suggest that? and how? Could i newly rate one? RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi,, and welcome to the Teahouse. Technically you can, but I would suggest getting more [//tools.wmflabs.org/guc/?user=RIT+RAJARSHI experience] so you can have a better feel for what is appropriate. If something is clearly a stub, you could class it as a stub. Rating importance is more difficult, as an article as simple as liqueur may engender a high level of importance. Cheers!  07:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You can read more about importance and quality assessments here, and here, . – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you upgrade halfway decent stub articles to start without hesitation, . In my opinion, there are a lot of stub articles that have been improved over time but have not been upgraded. Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  08:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)