Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 493

Draft:Boy Erased
I reviewed Draft:Boy Erased and declined it as a coatrack article really as much about gay conversion therapy as about the book. I received the following comment from User:Computationsaysno :

Hi, I appreciate the concerns about "coat-racking" however this book is all about gay conversion therapy and those who have practiced this "therapy". The book includes a timeline of the practice. To omit this content is to not actually cover the book which would be worse. The news articles talk about the book and the practice - they are inseparable.

My own opinion, which is consistent with my interpretation of the coatrack essay, is that gay conversion therapy should have and does have its own article, and that the article on the book doesn’t need to provide that detail. What do other experienced editors think? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

To not include a snapshot of the legal status of the practice (one brief paragraph), and that it is disreputable practice by mainstream authorities (another paragraph) would be an omission to covering the subject as do the news stories on this book. If I took out all mentions and all sources that mention it, there would be essentially no article to speak of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computationsaysno (talk • contribs) 02:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't need to remove references to sources that discuss the broader issue,, but the content of the article should be almost exclusively about the book. Readers can find out more about so-called gay conversion therapy by following a link to that article. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The proposed article is about the book. The "Background" section is not about the book at all, it is pure coatracking and should be removed. : have you considered contributing directly to the article Conversion therapy? Maproom (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have zero interest in dealing with changing the gay conversion therapy article. The book is all about gay conversion therapy and it's current state in the US, some summary is certainly needed and what little about this complex issue was presented was pulled from the main conversion therapy article in hopes to have a summary. I have trimmed it down a bit but I believe that does a disservice to the sources about the book which all touch on the broader issues. As I add in more interviews with the author about the book that might change things to appease whoever cares that much. Computationsaysno — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computationsaysno (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 June 2016‎ (UTC)


 * The author has moved the article to mainspace as Boy Erased]: A Memoir]. Any further discussion can be at [[Talk: Boy Erased: A Memoir.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Someone suggested that I make a Wikipedia article about my theories.
My name is Keith Carlock from Owensboro Kentucky. I'm new to Wikipedia.

Someone suggested that I make a Wikipedia article about my theories in invisibility ( adaptive camouflage) and holodeck ( virtual immersion) technologies theory.

How do I create an article?

Sincerely,

Keith Jason Carlock KeithCarlock73 (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. You have been given very bad advice, for two reasons. First, because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Wikipedia is never the first place to publish anyone's ideas or theories. Wikipedia is encyclopedia and encyclopedias are compendiums of knowledge as it has been published elsewhere before.


 * Second (regardless of the amount of possible previous publicity your theories have received), as the author of your theories you have a conflict of interest here. While your familiarity with your theory might make you an expert on them, it also unavoidably means that you are potentially biased toward your own creations. For these reasons, you should not create an article about your theories on Wikipedia. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi! A good reference for creating an article with advice and tips can be found here. I think your toughest sell will be to get NOTABLE SOURCES and you'll notice as well, it is strongly discouraged to write articles about yourself. regards,   Aloha27   talk  16:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hullo!

First of all, whoever gave you that idea, is a very bad idea! So I suggest not to listen to him. And about giving you some tips for excellent articles, i suggest you to click to Your First Article.

I hope you decide to stay on Wikipedia and start by editing some articles which needs some improvements. This helps you in confidence and gives you an idea about formatting articles so that in future, you don't have any problem for creating articles.

Be Bold! Cheers! Amy2563 (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I made a good faith search for coverage in independent, reliable sources of the theories espoused by Keith Carlock of Owensboro, Kentucky and found nothing. When reputable, peer reviewed journals in physics and in information technology devote significant coverage to your theories, then please return here for advice. Until then, your theories have no place on Wikipedia, . Cullen328   Let's discuss it  03:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Guidance needed for references. Other BLP seem to be lacking.
Referring to Draft: Oswald Werner As is often the case, even the most detailed instructions can be subject to interpretation. I was being told previously that I didn't have enough substantive references which resulted in the article being rejected. If I look at similar articles for living people, I see very little in the way of references. Some guidance would be appreciated.

I am referring to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Adovasio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_E._Buikstra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Struever Bernardwerner (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed, some existing Wikipedia articles are inadequately referenced. This is not an excuse for creating more such articles. It is a reason for improving their referencing (or deleting them, if this proves impossible). Maproom (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Please note that other stuff exists is never an acceptable argument on Wikipedia, as that is a downward spiral, to the lowest common denominator, and setting the standard as "no worse than the worst". Wikipedia has been raising its standards for some years, but there are still some poor early articles, from when standards were not so high, and others that have slipped through the net. We currently have 5,170,290 articles, so standards are bound to be uneven. - Arjayay (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

SuggestBot
Hi, Is there a way to get suggestions daily and regularly from SuggestBot? I tried this but didn't work. - INVISIBLEknock! 07:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, and welcome to The Teahouse. The maximum frequency for User:SuggestBot is weekly, so, here is your setup for that:


 * Cheers!  10:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Query regarding tags
Dear Team, I feel this article has multiple issues, tone is very promotional and lots of NPOV issues, also most of the references are not independent reliable sources like Youtube, imdb, facebook and other press releases. Have a look Saurabh_Malik I have added a tag of improving citations but I also suspect subjects notability. Kindly guide me with tag name, I should use in such condition ? However if I am wrong kindly educate me on it. Thanks and Regards Catrat999 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that most of the sources named are unreliable. However, there are cases when YouTube is reliable and videos csn be used for sources, such as a TV news station uploading news stories onto their channel. Just a note. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, with cc to  and . I believe IMDb is reliable for sourcing who starred in a movie, what year it came out, or what star has starred in what productions, etc. Same goes for directors, producers, etc. The IMDb bios however are created by users, AFAIK. Cheers!   02:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * you can read what part of IMDb is user generated here: WP:CITEIMDB. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, with cc to . All content on IMDb is user submitted. Extended bios, reviews, forum posts, and comments are unvetted, but subject to terms and conditions. All other database items are vetted by IMDb corporate employees. Forum posts and comments are not considered database items.


 * The WP:CITEIMDB essay (not a WP guideline or policy) is a poorly written one. Cheers!  18:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It should definitely be updated,, because it's a widely cited essay and several maintenance templates (eg. Film IMDb refimprove ) link to it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much to,  and Checkingfax for guiding me :) All the points were very informative and I appreciate and respect guidance from each one of you (Y) , Every thing explained by you all totally make sense to me :)

@ : I concluded not to tag it with notability issue as user has also referred some images of print media via uploading images on his personal google plus id. So I guess independent sources are there but in the form of print media. But I am still not convinced with the format of citation, Kindly guide me what is the best way to cite Print Articles which are only available in the form of images on social media platforms of subject? Thanks and Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . There is no required citation style on Wikipedia. If a citation style is used, it is suggested to use that style consistently throughout an article. References do not have to be listed in an article but it is helpful if they are. Here is a list of CS1 style citation templates. There are a few other citation templates that are not CS1. Click on the blue link to see the list of CS1 templates:
 * The one inline citation was not an IMDb reference; it was a The Times of India one. I have formatted it in a fully dressed citation template.
 * If text is challenged, then a citation should be put in place. Cheers!  18:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax : Thank you again for further guidance :) Cheers Catrat999 (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your friendly welcome User:WillKomen. I can't wait to start editing!

invites to the tea house?
Hello, I am in a seminar where we are learning about editing Wikipedia, and one of the participants received an invite to the teahouse. I was wondering why all new members/editors don't automatically receive this invite. Or perhaps on the page where you create a user account there is a note about the teahouse to let all new editors know about this resource. Thank you. Camstra (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, Camstra, and welcome to the teahouse. As you point out, new editors do not routinely receive invitations to the Teahouse, though all are welcome. My impression is that invitations are issued to those that the issuer thinks would benefit from them. But please tell your colleagues about the Teahouse. Maproom (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the most popular welcome templates,  does inlcude a link to the Teahouse. I think most of the other templates also have links to this page.  White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . There are over 28 million Wikipedia accounts and a large majority have never edited. The general thinking is to welcome people when they start editing (if they do), not when they open an account. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * mozucatHi mozucat, I am one of the NYU FRN participants and we are wondering if you have any thoughts on my question above? I was thinking it would be great if on the "Create an account" page that there was an announcement about or invite to The Tea House for all new editors. Do you think there is a way to have that happen? ALL of us here have now done some editing but only a couple of us received invites to the teahouse.

Camstra (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Need an english native speaker to have a look at my translation of the article Papis Loveday
Hey guys, I translated the German wiki page Papis Loveday (A model and Austrian TV moderator) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papis_Loveday) into english. Could someone that is a native speaker (or perfectly fluent in english) please go through the article and correct it in terms of syntax and phrasing and afterwards delete the template message concerning the translation? :) I put a lot of effort into that translation but I'm of course no linguist. It's my first wiki page!

I hope you have a great day and greetings :),

Jan Seekie90 (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

edit: I got a second question: another template message says, that there are to many links in the article- i deleted all unnecessary ones- how and who can i ask to delete that template message now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seekie90 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, . First and foremost, the Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, rather than somewhere to place requests for copy-editing. The folks over at the Guild of Copy Editors might be able to help you with that, though. I don't have time to proofread Papis Loveday myself, but scanning through quickly, I see use of ALL CAPS, which I would eliminate, and use of „This“ style of quote mark, whereas the correct version in English is "This". However, I think the main task is to address the issues that are currently highlighted in the templates at the top of the article. If you think you have addressed the concerns expressed there, you can say so on the article talk page and see if others agree. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Seekie90, Before you remove that template take another look at the list of what generally should not be linked.  Some quick examples would be 'athletics', 'Africa' and 'show'.  Also it's recommended to only link the first occurrence.  Some of the links repeat.  Still needs some work. Gab4gab (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to remove CamelCase in a URL?
A name of a company was improperly CamelCase'd and the resulting URL on the page was CamelCase'd. Is it possible to remove the CamelCase from the URL?

184.23.225.98 (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Articles (and their URL location) are renamed by moving them, see Moving a page. If you could give us the name of the article, we can do this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

finding user page Celia 18:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
why do I have trouble always finding my user page? Can others see it? Can I see other people's pages? Celia 18:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This question was asked by User:ShellShuttle. Celia, what I assume is your user page starts with an unpaired and an unpaired ]], but is perfectly visible. You ought to be able to see other users' user pages. Maproom (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You can navigate to your user page by clicking on your username at the top of the screen, . Your signature should contain a link to it too, but doesn't appear to be working properly. Check that "Treat the above as wiki markup" is unticked in the signature section of your preference - this is often the cause of this problem. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Rules on language samples
Are there any MoS (manual of style) rules on samples of languages on wiki articles about foreign languages? For example, are there restrictions on what sort of phrases you can use as samples, and how much text you use as samples, as Wikipedia is not a language tutorial website? What other rules are there?

I see that on the article about the Avar language, the Khoekhoe language and several other articles as well, there are samples for common phrases such as greetings. Does this break any rules? --Corsican Warrah Israeli Pika 18:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. The project WikiProject Languages provides support for "consistent treatment of each human language on Wikipedia". See their suggested article format at WikiProject Languages/Template which describes what should go into a section of "Examples". StarryGrandma (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Pictures for Articles
How do I insert some pictures? I have been trying it but it doesn't seems to take it and shows the name of the file instead. How do it? Please anybody, answer it fast. i really need it. It's very urgent!

Thanks! Amy2563 (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Where are the pictures at present, and where are you trying to insert them? Anyway, Wikipedia has no deadline. Maproom (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hullo!

The pictures are now currently on my desktop. I wanted it to insert on the recently created article Books of Malory Towers written by Pamela Cox.

Thank You! Amy2563 (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That article is likely to be deleted soon, as it provides no evidence of its subject's notability. But where did you get the pictures? Are they photographs that you took yourself? If they are, you can upload them to Wikimedia Commons, and then link from the article (if it survives) to the uploaded copies. Maproom (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That is, provided they are not photos of copyright materials such as book covers. . I can't think of any other kind of picture that might be appropriate for that article; and while book covers are sometimes used as non-free images to illustrate an article on the book in question, I very much doubt whether using any in an article of this sort would meet all the non free content criteria. One more point, Amy: almost nothing on Wikipedia is urgent, and adding pictures certainly is not. There is no deadline. --ColinFine (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The statement that the insertion of the pictures is really urgent makes me ask a question. Is there a contractual deadline involved?  If so, please read the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy and make the required disclosures.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Notability of "Ponce alla Livornese"
My new article submission on Ponce alla Livornese has been declined due to "references do not adequately show the subject's notability". The 'Ponce' is a typical local alcholic beverage of Livorno (Tuscany, Italy), well appreciated by visitors that many times already know about it when they visit the city. On the other side, being it typical and moreover local, I can understand a note about notability. How can we handle this subject, let it clear that th enotability is there and let the article be published ? The article cites bibliography and references already used in the italian version of the article: can more references help ? Thanks FabC (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Here on the English Wikipedia, we base articles on summarizing significant coverage of the topic in independent, reliable sources. I did a quick source for reliable sources and the best I find is a paragraph in a book called Authentic Tuscany. That source has weaknesses: it is brief, it is in a tourist guidebook, and it says that some of the ingredients have never been revealed. It comes off like a tourist gimmick. So, yes, higher quality sources would help. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Zintkala Nuni-Lost Bird
I reviewed Draft:Zintkala Nuni-Lost Bird and declined it, saying that it needed a proper lede sentence identifying its subject and explaining her notability. User: ZintkalaNuni requested a re-review, saying "I have attempted to change what you pointed out I had neglected to do. …I look forward to changing all that you point out that is wrong." I don’t see any notability issues. I think that the author has established notability. My only problem is that the article doesn’t state correctly. Maybe I haven’t explained that clearly. Can some other experienced editor help me explain that what is needed is a revised lede sentence? Can any other experienced editors comment on the draft in any other respects? My inclination is to accept it after the lede sentence is rewritten. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Something like: "Zintkala Nuni (1890 - 1920), also known as Lost Bird was a member of the Lakota people who, as an infant survived the Wounded Knee Massacre that killed her mother, and was later adopted and raised by a white family.", we never use formulations like "this is the story of .  .  ." or any other such narrative devices in a Wikipedia article. We start right out with straightforward prose describing and summarizing the topic in the first sentence. I agree that the topic is notable, and the story very sad. But we do not say that it is a sad  story in Wikipedia's voice. We let the verifiable facts speak for themselves. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  06:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

How should I proceed on edit warring?
The Rojava article I like to work on out of academic/professional interest in the topic incites much political emotions by many users. While in the past these things could somehow be solved, User:Ogress now persistently reverts the article to his particular POV, irrespective of discussion on the talk page. I never needed administrator help before on editing, what can I do? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Persistently? I disagreed with you once. You did not even reply on the talk page to my comments on the subject. Ogress 10:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . The place to request administrator attention in the case of edit warring is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. However, you should try to resolve the content dispute on the article's talk page first. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the dispute resolution policy. Discuss on the article talk page.  If that is inconclusive, try any of the options mentioned in the dispute resolution policy.  Before reporting edit-warring at WP:ANEW, read the boomerang essay because it is common for both editors to be blocked.  It doesn't look to me as though either side is over the limit and ready to be blocked.  It looks to me as though discussion on the article talk page is inconclusive.  Try Third Opinion or the dispute resolution noticeboard or a specialized noticeboard.  Robert McClenon (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Cordless Larry and Robert McClenon. I started with five of these WP:RfC requests. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Creating of new article
Hi,I want to create an article which has previously deleted from wikipedia.Smarty5 (talk) 05:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. I advise you to read Your first article, and if your research shows that the subject is notable, then create a draft using the Articles for creation process. If you produce a high-quality draft (well sourced, neutral language, properly referenced) then the fact that a previous attempt failed will not matter. It might be worth looking at the deletion discussion for the previous attempt (Search in Special:log/delete) because if that turned on the subject not being notable, it may indicate that there is no point in proceeding (unless there are new sources since the deletion, of course). But if the problem was with the article itself (eg it was in a promotional tone, or a copyright violation) rather than the notability of the subject, then the previous attempt is irrelevant. --ColinFine (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I tagged instead of  in that answer. Sorry to bother you, Smarty! --ColinFine (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The article in question Dinesh Soi was deleted by consensus. See Articles for deletion/Dinesh Soi. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox
Dear all!

when i try to edit "" Kohat "" the following warning appears, in red.

Warning: Page using Template:Infobox settlement with unknown parameter "elevation_m_max" (this message is shown only in preview).

Warning: Page using Template:Infobox settlement with unknown parameter "elevation_m_min" (this message is shown only in preview).

can anybody please fix this issue?

Best regards

Aftab Banoori (Talk) 16:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have fixed the issue. These errors are due to deprecated parameters in the infobox (possibly there due to the infobox syntax being copied from another article or the infobox documentation page, which had not been updated after changes to the infobox code had been made). I too find it rather strange that the error message does not produce a link to a help page explaining this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dear Finnusertop

I am extremely grateful for your help.

Aftab Banoori (Talk) 16:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

First AFC
Hi, It's my first time here on Wikipedia creating a brand new article. I have a basic knowledge of HTML, inserting citations and references etc.

I was wondering if perhaps anybody could give me some advice on the page I have tried to create - Draft:Adam_Greenwood.

It was previously rejected for not having notable enough sources such as Twitter and YouTube, so I have gone through and tried to add some more that I could find, without overpopulating and referencing unnecessarily.

Ps19950987 (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . A topic (Greenwood in this case) is notable when reliable, independent sources devote significant coverage to that topic. In the context of a living person, experienced editors expect the coverage to be extensive and biographical in nature. Twitter is by definition not an independent reliable source. The vast majority of YouTube videos fail that test. Gossip clickbait sites like BuzzFeed are not reliable, and neither are sensationalistic tabloid newspapers. Do not worry about whether or not your sources are notable since many terribly unreliable sources are notable. Der Sturmer and Weekly World News are both notable but utterly unreliable. Look instead for reliable sources devoting significant coverage to Greenwood as a person,  with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy, fact checking and correcting errors. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  03:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The comments of User:Cullen328 are a little confusing. I will try to explain.  There is a difference between an article subject being notable and a medium or source being notable.  An article subject is required to be notable.  A source is required to be reliable.  Grocery store tabloids, as mentioned, are notable, in that we cover them, but we don't believe them, and they should (with one rare exception) never be used as sources.  (The rare exception would be if a tabloid's coverage of its celebrity subject had generated notable coverage in the reliable media, such as if the subject had sued the tabloid for libel.)  Sources do not have to be notable, but they must be reliable.  That is not always clear, but some cases are.  The Gaurdian is reliable, and Weekly World News is not reliable.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your help.

I now understand it is not whether the sources help the subject's notability, rather it's reliability. I will endeavor to improve upon these aspects when creating/editing future articles.

Thank you :)

Ps19950987 (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Elope (business)
I reviewed Draft:Elope (business) and declined it as reading like an advertisement. Its author, User:Omnitaus, made changes to it and resubmitted it. I think that it is better but still has tone issues. The comments of other experienced editors are welcome. Should the current version be accepted, or does it still need rework? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've learned much since the first and second revisions, thank you kindly for the patience and feedback. Though I've resubmitted, I'm still looking over the article for changes that might address the tone of the passage as a whole. In addition to User:Robert McClenon's question, if I might add to the discussion my own: are there any passages, phrases, or word that stick out specifically? I've read WP:NPOV and any styling guides I've run across, but I still lack the necessary experience. Thanks in advance! Omnitaus (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the "Charitable Contributions" section stands out as rather promotional. Charity is obviously not the hard core of a business' activities. Whether or not these charity contributions are given much weight in sources that discuss Elope, I don't know. But in order to justify this section, I think the sources should either say how much charity Elope does or what its impact is. Now it just lists unrelated contributions. Some of them are rather minor, others not even charity (discounts). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The section on "Charitable Contributions" was in fact one of the reasons why I was wondering whether the editor was affiliated with the company, because stressing charitable contributions is typically promotional. (However, I may be cynical, in that, when I see a new editor who focuses almost entirely on one company, I wonder about conflict of interest.  Omnitaus has said that they do not have a conflict of interest.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Cynicism is healthy to have in certain quantities, I understand now why my article read as an advertisement. The feedback I've received has been very helpful in avoiding future mistakes. However, I only came to know of elope through their sponsorship of local events here in the Springs, and it is often given precedence in sources that discuss the organization. When elope is mentioned in independent, reliable sources it is often as the result of a local event that they are involved with. Many of these are not notable enough to include in the section because no news agencies cover them, but the Waldo Waldo and St Baldricks are very large events. Perhaps renaming the section to "Involvements" would remove the promotional tone? Omnitaus (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I forgot to add, the section that mentions the discount (Waldo Waldo) also mentions that they provide monetary and staffing support, though the source isn't forthcoming with hard data. I will continue to edit and address the feedback I have received thus far Omnitaus (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Shyamw1/sandbox and Draft:G. Parthasarathy
I am puzzled, and an inexperienced editor seems to be puzzled, about two drafts about the same person. I have reviewed User:Shyamw1/sandbox and have tried to move it to Draft:G. Parthasarathy. However, there is already a draft there. The only difference is that the sandbox belongs to User:Shyamw1, and the draft is by User:Wshyam.

There has been previous confusion because of an article on Gopalapuram Parthasarathy, but it is now clear that the article is on a living person and the drafts are about a dead person (and the two drafts are obviously about the same person).

I am guessing that these are the same user. I have tried asking User:Shyam1 whether they are the same person. Both versions have notability issues and tone issues. The tone issues include referred to him as "visionary" in the voice of Wikipedia. The notability issues are that the references are not properly formatted, and that it would be useful to find more references. (It appears that he is notable, but that a better case needs to be made for his notability.)

User:Shyamw1 would like to delete the existing draft to work on the sandbox. If they are the same person, they may delete the draft, but then should stick to one account. If they are not the same person, they should collaborate.

Can someone else either provide advice on how to deal with the situation of two drafts, or provide advice on how to ask the user whether they have (probably by mistake) used two accounts? Can someone else also provide specific advice on improving the notability of the article? (As general advice, read referencing for beginners and referencing). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . has a wikilink at their fingertips to an essay that states that notability exists for a qualified subject even if the citations are not yet listed in the article.


 * My crystal ball says the two users are one and the same. Cheers!  21:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If they will state that they are the same editor, they may request deletion of one of the two drafts and work on the other.  As to notability even if the citations are not yet listed, that is a better argument in AFD than in AFC.  I won't accept a draft in AFC that doesn't have at least the minimally required references.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not know why there would be any confusion regarding Gopalaswami Parthasarathy since they are clearly two different Indian diplomats who happen to share a similar name, . I know that AFC has its procedures and so on, but this is a project to build an encyclopedia, and sometimes we set formal procedures to the side and work to facilitate acceptance of an article about a notable topic. The two drafts are almost identical and any theory that they were written independently is without merit. Improving the content of the encyclopedia is more important than procedures and formalities. Let's do what is needed to get this biography into the encyclopedia and clean it up in main space. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for discussing this. Both Shyamw1 and Wshyam are the same person (me). I would like to delete Wshyam but I don't know how to do it. I created this account a while ago and forgot I had it. I am really interested in getting this article about G.Parthasarathy published because I know he is a notable figure in Indian politics and has made important contributions to foreign policy. I was surprised to note that there was no article in Wikipedia on him. I am happy to do whatever is needed to have this article accepted and would greatly appreciate any help I can get. Thanks, again. Shyamw1 (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Shyamw1
 * Now that you have said that they are the same user, we can make progress. I will move the other draft out of the way and the one that you want into draft space.  Please do not use the other user ID again.  Did you create the extra user ID because you forgot your password or for some similar new-user-mistake?  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can someone please improve the format of the references in User:Shyamw1/sandbox? The rest will be taken care of.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I may have created the Wshyam ID first to get acquainted with Wikipedia and the sandbox feature but I must have forgotten my password or the fact that I had already had an account. Then I read somewhere that universities were using Wikipedia to introduce students to information literacy. I liked the idea and that's when I created the Shyamw1 account (it's my university username) in the hope of doing that with my students but I somehow never got around to it. I recently got interested in writing articles or editing articles for Wikipedia and I am slowly learning how to do it. I didn't know how to respond to comments from editors and wasn't familiar with the talk process and that may have been the reason for the several draft submissions. I think I finally understand how to do it. Will keep trying to get better at it. Thank you for understanding.Shyamw1 (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Shyamw1
 * Since your user of multiple accounts was a mistake, you should simply abandon one of the accounts, probably the earlier one. Please either improve the format of the references or ask an editor here to help you improve the format of the references.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I will abandon Wshyam and stick with Shyamw1. Thanks for all your help thus far. I asked for help from Live Chat but in both instances the "helper" quit. I'm not sure how to get in touch with someone other than through Live Chat. I saw that Helpbot joined the chat. I typed !Helper and my question as per the instructions but no one seemed to respond although I stuck around for a while. Not sure what to do next. Shyamw1 (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Shyamw1

Stars
I want to earn a star for my many achievements as a Wikipedia user, but no matter how hard I try, I never get a star! How must I appease the Wikipedia gods? HOW?! BuyMyCereal (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse . Seeing you started just a day ago, you can't expect Barnstars all around. However earning a star is a matter of decision from another user who has felt that you have earned certain barnstar (list here on how they work and what type of barnstars there are into further detail).  A dog 104  Talk to me 23:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello there, . Here is my advice: Stop vandalizing Wikipedia now and never vandalize again. Make 1000 useful, productive, policy compliant edits, and then drop a note on my talk page. I will be happy to award you a barnstar. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Editing in link doesn't direct me to a certain part of a wiki page
Hello, when I try to edit in a link to a certain part of a wiki article, it doesn't work. For example, on the "Government of the first Bourbon restoration" page, I wanted to edit in a link for the words "fall of Napoleon" to include the fall of the french empire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_French_Empire#The_Fall

Before I submitted the changes, I wanted to check the link. When I clicked it, it only directed me to the page of the "First French Empire", not to the fall. Am I doing something wrong?

Thanks in advance

Sith Lord Amadeus (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Just add the link to the words like this: fall of Napoleon.  I'll leave it to you to make the edit in the article.    D b f i r s   07:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Patta
I reviewed Draft: Patta and declined it on notability grounds because the references do not appear to be independent. User: Myrthevdstaay then wrote on my talk page:

I think the article shouldn't have been rejected on notabilty. Patta is a really big thing in Europe and is available worldwide. Patta is also still growing and probably gonna conquer the rest of the world really soon, so wikipedia if you don't want a page about that I don't know about what you do want a page. I'd also really love to get some tips on how to improve my page instead of just saying it's not notable enough, because it is. I think that this editor may not understand notability, or that the author is expected to establish notability by providing independent third-party sources, and that we don’t care what Patta has written about itself, only what others not associated with it have written about it. Can someone either help me explain, or advise me why I should have accepted? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No,, I agree with you. : in Wikipedia, 'notable' doesn't mean famous, or important, or popular, or big, or influential, or anything like that (in a way it is an unfortunate choice of word) It means one thing: that the subject has been written about, in some depth, by people unconnected with it, and that writing has been published in reliable places. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject, or their friends, employees or associates, say about them: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about them. So what you need to do is to find some reliable sources (major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers) that have discussed Patta. They don't need to be in English, but they must be independent of the company - so, no interviews, no articles written from press releases. We need to know that several people who are not connected with the company have thought it worth writing about them. If you can find some such sources, then you can write the article, based almost 100% on what those sources say. You can add uncontroversial factual information like places and dates from Patta's own published sources (but they must still be published); but most of it must come from independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts about the notability of a what seems to be a single shoe store but the advice of experienced Dutch speaking editors, like for example, might be useful in this case. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  18:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry User: Myrthevdstaay, not a big thing in terms of notability, or even in terms of clothing stores in general. They're hardly Sissy-Boy. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a carefully selected counterexample,, and I thank you for it. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Stylish and metrosexual, my dear . I wear a light moss-green linen jacket by Sissy-Boy in the summer when I'm teaching, or alternately my low-riding dark blue with light blue stripes pants and jacket. I wrote the article up a while ago and was reminded of how eminently notable things are frequently still difficult to verify. The meaning of Sissy-Boy, for instance, as a gay-friendly clothing brand and store in the 1980s is impossible to verify reliably. I think and I had similar problems verifying the notability of Royal Club recently, a brand that has been around for 80 years and is widely known. There's a certain transparency to the things we grow up with: there is no need to write about them or report them, because everyone knows. It's not until academics (esp. historians and sociologists) start writing about these topics that we get real good sourcing and more meaningful content--because it's such writing that incorporates the primary things that we cannot incorporate. Thanks, and thanks for your tea service, Drmies (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Change of username????
To be clear - this is not a request to change my username. However, on my talkpage someone told me about a year ago that my username was going to change. However, it seems it hasn't. I'm confused.

If my username does have to change - I'd rather be able to pick the new name than having to take the very ugly one suggested on my talk page.

kh7 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse ! Although your user name seems fine, as it doesn't seem violate anything per Username policy, you can always change your username by going to Changing username. Hope this helped!  A dog 104  Talk to me 15:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just went to see history of your talk page and I didn't see such warning or notice there, would you mind giving link of that notice? <b style="background-color:#08CEF9;color:black">IN</b><b style="background-color:black;color:#08CEF9">VISIBLE</b>knock! 16:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess you refer to the Dutch Wikipedia talk page for your account: nl:User talk:Kh7. Special:CentralAuth/Kh7 shows that five days after receiving the message you merged your Dutch account with your global account. This means the planned name change was cancelled. Years ago different people could create the same user name at different wikis, and the software didn't know whether the Dutch and English Kh7 were the same person. You have shown that it is so you can ignore the old message. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

search pages
I am currently using this page to find pages containing errors which I can correct, but often I find that articles I have edited still appear on the list as if no change has been made, such as this where clearly, there is no longer any need for this article to still be on the list, as you may see [here]. Why is it so difficult clean up this list Jodosma (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Jodosma. The search entry says "All in One (Whigfield album) (redirect from All In One - Whigfield (Fans decided tracklisting))". It is the redirect and not the target article that is found by the search. See Help:Searching. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Tools for Analysis of User Accuracy
I know that there's a tool which can be used to see a particular user's accuracy rating in regards to votes and nominations at AfD. Are there any tools which do the same for other things, like how often a request for page protection is acted upon or how often a report to AIV or UAA results in a block? –Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't think this tool exists. I mean, it is possible, but I'm pretty sure you are just imagining things.

BuyMyCereal (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * , I don't wish to be rude, but you created this account two days ago, and have made fifteen edits. Is there a reason why we should listen to your opinion? (For comparison, I have been using my account for 11 years and made 12 thousand edits: I don't know the answer to the question, and I am not venturing an opinion). --ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Contra, such a tool exists for AfDs: here. Alas, I am not aware of any similar tools regarding AIV, UAA, page protection or anything similar. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * for AFD stats there is AFDStats and for other pages there is User contribution search but this does not give outcomes just the number of edits made to the page queried. Nthep (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there some problem with my username?
Every time I add a warning to someone's talkpage after I've seen them do unconstructive edits or vandalised my user name breaks up the text and I must edit out spaces betwen the | and the *. Does that happen to everyone or is it something weird with my username?&#42;Treker (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No,, it doesn't happen to everyone, and I've little doubt it's because of the * in your user name. It seems to let my ping you using U. Whether it's a bug or a (documented or undocumented) restriction, I don't know. --ColinFine (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well that's very unfortunate. I really really like my username. I hope I don't have to change it if it's against some restriction.&#42;Treker (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I see from your signature here that you have already tried the "infamous" ASCII code &#42 trick. Only guessing, but you might try placing  *    there instead. Let me know if that works for you.  Regards, <span class="plainlinks" style="background: rgba(0,0,0,.05);">— JoeHebda • (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry but I don't understand. I don't know what ASCII is. Could you explain?&#42;Treker (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume that the "ASCII code &#42 trick" involves typing &#042; instead of *, producing (probably) the same result but without unintended side-effects. Maproom (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So could I change my username to &#042;Treker some way?&#42;Treker (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe, I don't know. But you could also change it to whatever you like, and cause it to be displayed as "*treker", or as "&#042;treker". Maproom (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Sorry for the lateness of this reply, but my internet at home is broken & not to be fixed until Tuesday. So here goes.... I think the * is used in "wikicode" for List items. So a useful alternative might be the bullet, which is   or use the  • character instead. Good luck. Cheers! <span class="plainlinks" style="background: rgba(0,0,0,.05);">— JoeHebda • (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm going to try to fix it when I have some time over.&#42;Treker (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You didn't post an example but I found in your contributions. Does the problem only occur when you use   on a template which automatically inserts your username inside the message like ? I don't have a solution for that but I can say it's unrelated to whatever you put in the signature field in Special:Preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it only seems to happen when I post waring templates that insert my username automatically.&#42;Treker (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is T14974. I don't know solutions apart from avoiding such templates or change to a username not starting with an asterisk. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Editing For People Without A Lot Of Time
Hello all, I'd like to edit more, but I don't have a lot of time due to work. Does anyone have a recommendation on some avenues where to go? South Nashua (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Greetings and Welcome to the Teahouse! A good place to find more Wikipedia articles to be improved 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) 13:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! South Nashua (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Creating Systech Solutions Page
I want to create a page for Systech Solutions which I am not able to find in existing articles. I want to create it under BI(Business Intelligence) since it is one of the promising companies in this field.

ShankarSivasamy (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . When I do a quick Google News and Google Books search for coverage of Systech Solutions, I see very little in the way of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The company's own website does not contribute to notability. I concede that I may have missed something. My suggestion to you is to read and study Your first article, and then read and study it again. Follow all of its recommendations, and ask yourself whether or not this company is notable as Wikipedia defines that term. Be prepared to furnish the sources. An unsupported  assertion that "it is one of the promising companies in this field" is of no value here,  and may actually be counterproductive, as experienced editors will respond, "prove it!" <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  05:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Cullen,

I understand that this does not come under the notable guidelines but what should be done to see this page in Wikipedia when I google systech solutions. May be this will become notable in future. let me know your thoughtsShankarSivasamy (talk) 09:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If a subject is not notable according to Wikipedia's definition,, then we can't have an article about it. If the subject becomes notable at a later point, then the article can be created then. I'm sorry if this is a disappointment, but creating an article about a non-notable company would be a waste of your time as the article would very likely be deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Cordless Larry I will create it when it becomes notableShankarSivasamy (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)