Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 504

Art of Editing
Hi, I need to know in which type i can draft an article. I have Drafted this article (Steps of Safety Audit), but it got rejected. So kindly help me to draft a good article. Thanks Fazill at Safety Professionals (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi,, and welcome to the Teahouse! It seems like the reason for the most recent decline for Steps of Safety Audit was because the article already exists. For future reference, I would suggest you read Your first article before writing another draft.
 * Also, just because an article is rejected once doesn't mean you can't keep improving your draft and trying again. I've seen drafts get rejected quite a few times before getting accepted.
 * I would also recommend that, instead of creating an article as soon as you've registered, you edit existing articles for a while and get a feel for how an article should look. Then, when you feel comfortable enough with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines (some of which are noted in Wikipedia's Manual of Style, create an article through Wikipedia's Articles for Creation process, which allows you to create a draft in the Drafts area with little risk of deletion.  It then allows others to review the draft when you're ready and create the article for you if it's ready.
 * -- Gestrid (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

How do I create a disambiguation page?
I am asking specifically about the term "Niyogi". There's an article titled Niyogi, but if you select "containing...Niyogi" in the search drop-down box, the return yields 5 articles about individuals with Niyogi as part of their names as well as an article about an organization with Niyogi as a part of its name. It seems like a disambiguation page is needed. Thanks in advance for guidance on how to create one. Kekki1978 (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation could be helpful. Thanks..-The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORD my strength 03:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Great! Thanks! Kekki1978 (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Mission 3 - Wiki Adventure
I'm running into an editing issue as I venture into Mission 3 on the Wiki Adventure. Obviously I'm new. Mfmg2042 (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. Could you be a little more specific with what's going on?  What's happening when you try to edit during the mission? -- Gestrid (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Contacting Notthebestusernam about Sir Mohamed Yusuf article
Hi.

I'm trying to get in touch with user Notthebestusername, regarding his edits on the article about Sir Mohamed Yusuf. It looks like he created the article. I'm Sir Mohamed Yusuf's great-grandson, and I'm looking for information about him. What should I do to contact Notthebestusername?

Sincerely, Faheem Mitha Faheem.Mitha (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that you are talking about the article Mohamed Yusuf?  It is always easier if you provide a wikilink.  If you look at the article history you will see that the entries from Notthebestusername say "talk" alongside them, and that takes you to User talk:Notthebestusername where the "New section" tab allows you to start a new conversation with the editor. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at User:Notthebestusername's edit history, they only edit two or three days a month, so you may have to wait several weeks before they even read your message - please be patient - Arjayay (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Faheem.Mitha - You can contact me either here - on my talk page - or if your inout is directly related to the page on Mohamed Yusuf, on the talk page for talk:Mohamed Yusuf.

A friendly suggestion - for any inputs on the same, though I think your information will be nearly 100% accurate (due to your antecedents), this alone will be insufficient for a wiki edit. A citation / reference will be required (either in the press or in a book).

Do let me know what changes you would like made. Notthebestusername (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I look forward to any inputs on the page on Mohamed Yusuf.

Please do provide a reference / citation (from a newspaper / magazine / book) for any suggested edits. Notthebestusername (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

why my article for dopahi village is deleted
everytime i add some info about dopahi village .is deleted by wikipedia editor i also gave reference about my village by giving website..www.ballia.nic.in in this website there is an option to check village detail.and another websites www.fcs.up.in in which complete detail of ration cards of each villagers are added.. evenafter my article is deleted.. what more reference i should give plz suggest me

regards victor dubey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.56.63 (talk) 06:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Most additions of content to Dopahi have been made by an editor called, so I am notifying that editor. The problems with the edits are that they are not referenced to reliable sources, at least in the opinion of the editor who reverted. All Wikipedia content needs to be verifiable, so I suggest that you read Referencing for beginners. In short, you can't add content here unless you furnish a reliable source verifying it. Perhaps the editor who reverted, , may have something additional to bring to the discussion. Personally, I am unsure if the websites you mentioned are reliable or not.Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know of the discussion. There a multiple issues with the edits. The main one is that it is entirely unreferenced and likely to be original research, which is not permitted. The reference that is given does not mention the village whatsoever, and lastly, it is poorly written and lacking proper capitalisation. Editing on Wikipedia requires competence. Thank you David.moreno72 (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Correct coding for having the cover of a book displayed on Christopher Holcroft page
Hi,

I have tried to update an article on Australian author Christopher Holcroft in his books section.

Holcroft has recently re-published his second novel Canyon.

The coding for the article's citing of his other four books all seems correct as their covers show up when his name is searched in Google as being found in Wikipedia.

I have tried adjusting the code for Canyon a number of times to have the cover seen without success.

The first para from Holcroft's books section is:

In 2008, Australia celebrated its Centenary of Scouting, and Holcroft wrote the first two novels in the Scott Morrow adventure trilogy to mark the occasion: Only The Brave Dare and Canyon

The coding for Only The Brave Dare is correct as the cover is displayed and can be accessed directly through Google Books.

The coding for Canyon SSEMS to be correct as it can be accessed through play Google but no cover is displayed in Wikipedia.

Can someone assist me please.

7Lawrence 7Lawrence 04:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7Lawrence (talk • contribs) Revision as of 13:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC+9)


 * Note to Host: The article in question seems to be Christopher Holcroft. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . When I look at Christopher Holcroft, I do not see any book covers displayed in that article. Google may display content from Wikipedia, and may also display graphics such as book covers that it finds elsewhere. Here at Wikipedia, we have no direct control about how Google displays content. If we write informative encyclopedia articles, then Google's robots will extract and display our content, mixing it as they see fit with content or images from other websites. We do not normally include images of book covers in author biographies, but do include book covers in articles about notable books. Please see our policy on use of non-free images for more information. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . In addition to what posted above about images, I am not completely sure how this author satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines for authors or even Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people in general. For sure, he has published quite a number of books, but the article says that they are all published by Infinity Publishing (USA). According to the company's website, this is a company that helps individuals self-publish books, likely for a fee. Self-publishing books is not usually something considered sufficient to establish the Wikipedia notability needed for a stand-alone article, so instead of focusing on book covers, etc., it might be better to try and find independent, reliable sources which show that Holcroft have received the significant coverage needed to establish Wikipedia notability; otherwise, the article might not survive an articles for deletion nomination. The only independent, reliable source I could find in the article was Holcroft family applauds inquest. That may be acceptable to verifying that particular bit of information in the article, but it does nothing, in my opinion, to establish Holcroft's notability for a stand-alone article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Your signature appears to be broken, as it is not linking to your user page. Can you check that the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box in your preferences is unticked? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

friedrich engels
i deleted some contents from the friedricj engels page because it was not totally correct...although m also not very sure about the true content..but i promise to write the correct information by the end of this month...tnq.....103.25.7.41 (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You deleted the entire contents of the article on the grounds that you disagree with some of it. It was all restored. Then you deleted half of it, promising to replace it later with a version that you prefer. The content you deleted has been restored again. Such behavior is likely to get you banned from editing, if repeated. If you think there are errors in the article on Friedrich Engels, please discuss them on the article's talk page, and supply references supporting your views. Maproom (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Football club logo – where to ask for help?
I suspect the logo of Lanexang United F.C. added in edit oldid=717055840 is incorrect—it differs from what the club's web page shows, e.g.. It also contains a typo ('clup' instead of 'club').

I have added a note on the talk page (Talk:Lanexang United F.C.) in April, but got no response. Where should I ask for verification of the logo validity? --CiaPan (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse,, and thanks for spotting this error. I think that after several months without reply, you are well within your rights to remove the logo from the article. If anyone objects, then is the time to discuss it further on the talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Larry, for your prompt reply. I think I'll add a Cleanup message at the top of the article to attract other editors' attention. If that fails I'll do as you said. --CiaPan (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for Edelweiss Tokio Life insurance Wiki Page
Dear Sir,

My name is Mukesh Chaurasia, I work for Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance as Manager, Digital Marketing.

My company has no Wikipedia page, to create the same I have requested to write an article for my company.

I have also shared the references to justify the wiki presence of Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance.

It’s almost 3-4 weeks but no one has picked the article.

I found your contact while seeking help, I request you to please guide how to proceed to get edelweiss tokio life presence on Wikipedia.

About Edelweiss:

Established in year 2011, Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Company Ltd is a new age IRDA approved life Insurance company in India. It is a joint venture between Edelweiss, a leading financial company in India and Tokio Marine, one of the fastest growing life insurance companies in Japan.

Best Regards,

Mukesh ChaurasiaRisingguns 007 (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you posted your request at Requested articles/Business and economics. On the surface, that was the correct thing to do (and certainly preferable to creating the article yourself, given that you have a conflict of interest with the topic). However, as you'll see from the many articles listed on just the business subpage, the requested articles pages are a bit of a black hole. I don't know if there are currently editors who regularly create articles that have been requested there, but even if there are, the backlog is huge and I wouldn't hold your breath for the article to be created. I'm not sure that I have an alternative suggestion, but others might have. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I would echo 's acknowledgment of you for going about it the right way: posting at Requested Articles, and asking for help here. It may help you to understand that no company in the world has a Wikipedia page: Wikipedia has articles about many companies, which is not the same thing. If we have an article about your company, it is not your or your company's business to edit it, and you will have no control over the contents. Rather, the article should be a neutrally written summary entirely based on materials published by people who have no connection with the company: Wikipedia is not interested in what the company (or any other company) says or wants to say about itself.
 * One way that you may be able to move this forward is to find some such sources (please read identifying reliable sources). If you can find at least two or three places where people who have no connection with your company have written substantial pieces (at least a couple of paragraphs, and not based on interviews or press releases) and had them published in places with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control (such as major newspapers), then add citations to these sources to your request at Requested Articles: they will greatly increase the chances that a volunteer will pick up your request (though there are no guarantees). On the other hand, if you cannot find such sources, then your company is almost certainly not notable in Wikipedia's special sense, and no article about it will be accepted.
 * Another way you might find somebody who wishes to work with you is by asking as WT:WikiProject India. --ColinFine (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears that did already suggest some sources in the request - and at least some of those look to be reliable and independent. The suggestion to look for potential editors via WikiProjects is a good one. WikiProject Finance could be one to try. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

My most recent alterts from wikimedia commons do not show up
Are they in a different place? Eperless (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are separate websites, though both are run by the Wikimedia Foundation. You can find your Commons messages at your Commons talk page. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I found them but am not sure how to reply to them. In fact, I'm not sure of how to reply to anything or how to get back into the Teahouse.

I don't even know where the tilde is on my keyboard and I have to keep copying it. Where is it on a Mac keyboard?

Eperless (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . To get back to this part of the Teahouse, just type WP:THQ in the search box. That is a shortcut for Wikipedia: Teahouse questions. Every message on your Commons talk page has a link to the talk page of the editor who left the message. Just click on those links to converse. Messages about image deletions have links to discussions about those deletions. Click on any link to comment. As for the location of the tilde character on a Mac keyboard, I do not know as I am a PC and Android user. But I would be surprised if it isn't there somewhere. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * A Google search indicates that Macintosh computers don't have a tilde key. Apparently you can create a tilde by holding the key and hitting . See this page for more about it. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, if you look at the bottom of the edit box, you'll see different options, including one that says "Sign your posts on talk pages", and it's followed by four tildes. Click the four tildes to add them to your post. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your help. I actually found the tilde on the mac keyboard to the left of the 1 key.

Eperless (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Edited my deleted/unposted page but don't remember my nickname to log in.
Hello, Over a month ago, I made up a Wikipedia page, but I didn't several sources (my mistake). Today I edited my page and tried talking live to see if the changes will be reflected and published. The message I saw was that my Wiki page was deleted. Yet I could still see my page. However, I was asked what my nickname was and I don't recall it. I do have my page title and my password. How can I find my nickname and edit/update? Best, Drew GearciDrew Geraci (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you mean your username? If so, that is Drew Geraci, and you are already logged in. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * By page, perhaps you mean User:Drew Geraci. That has been nominated for deletion, but has not yet been deleted. The reason that it has been nominated is that you have used the page to write an article about yourself, but pages starting with "User:" aren't for that purpose. They should instead be used to give basic details about you, your editing interests and your other activities on Wikipedia, should you wish to tell people about those things. Please see User pages. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I see you have also posted a slightly different question at the Help desk, 11 minutes before this post - it would help us, help you, if you only used one forum - Arjayay (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Cordless Larry

I typed my name Drew Geraci in as well as my password. Then I clicked Submit.

Then I got a red error message above it saying "Enter nickname" I don't recall ever using a nickname or creating one. Is there a way to bypass this?

I usually always write down my passwords, and if I had a nickname, I would have written that down too. So I'm scratching my head. Sometimes on sites you can click "Forgot password?" but I remembered it and wondered if I could have my nickname mailed to me. This may not be my proper question but I'm confused.Drew Geraci (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Where are you being asked to enter this information, ? You are already logged in, hence your signature, and we don't have "nicknames" on Wikipedia (apart, perhaps, from informally). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * posted on my talk page that "When I went to log into my Wikipedia page with my name and my password for editing purposes, that's when I got the 'Nickname' space to type in". I don't understand this, as the login page asks for a username, not a nickname, and is not accessible to logged-in editors - and Drew is clearly logged in. Can anyone else help work out what is going on? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you using some sort of phone app to log in? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

==I want to attribute correctly 2602:306:BC09:4F70:6C35:C0EA:9BD:9215 (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)== I am working on my first book and it is about church/state separation. One of the chapters has to do with Fort Caroline and the massacre that occurred there between French Huguenots and Spaniards. Wikipedia has a very good reference article which corroborates almost everything I have read on the subject. I would like to borrow parts of the essay. Can I do footnotes or endnotes or thank the article and Wikipedia at the end of the chapter? How do I find who the author is and contact him or her? In other words, I'm really clueless how to use and cite Wikipedia. Thanks, Eric 2602:306:BC09:4F70:6C35:C0EA:9BD:9215 (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you wish to reuse Wikipedia's content, you should read the page Copyrights, especially the red box at the top and this section of the page.  You should also read our Creative Commons license and GNU license, under which all or the majority of the content of our articles are licensed under. -- Gestrid (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is it my article declined because of the English is very hard to understand?
Hi,

Currently I am creating an article about a web app called Page365 (Draft:Page365), I have created this article since may, firstly I received comment that "This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission."

And then I revised them accordingly

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

Then it's being revised again.

And lastly the comment says "Unfortunately, the English in here is very hard to understand, and it may be difficult for someone to copy edit because of this. I don't know what to propose, although perhaps someone at Teahouse can help."

As I sent to other english speaking people that my article is easy enough to understand, could anyone help me with this?

Scomma (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What is the article about? Its title is Page365 and the lead talks about &apos;a software in the form of web application&apos; but it also contains Infobox company. Is it about Page365 applic.software then, or about Softbaked company? --CiaPan (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you working for the company? If so, please, first, make the paid editing disclosure, and, second, find someone who has more mastery of English to rework the draft.  If not, please try writing the article in the Wikipedia in your first language, and then maybe, if the company is notable, it can be translated into English.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

sources for businesses
Is there a source dedicated to looking up businesses? How does a business go from not notable to notable? Thanks. Jones22n (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Though not a source in the sense understood by Wikipedia policy, Google is probably as good a place as any to look up businesses, although of course there are also specialist business directories. As for notability, a topic is notable when it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. So, if a business that was not notable according to this standard suddenly had a book written about it, or became the subject of detailed newspaper articles, then it would become notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

When the author of an article is listed as "Herald Staff"
I have a newspaper article that shows the author's name as "Herald Staff". Can I put the words "Herald Staff" in the author's name parameter of a reference citation? Or should the author parameter just be left out of the reference in this instance (since it's not the name of a person)? Lupine453 (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . When no author name is provided in a source, I just leave those fields blank. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  21:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Me too, assuming Herald is mentioned in another field like newspaper. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @Lupine453: The documentation to suggests using   It's a small issue, but I do think adding something like that helps make verifiability slightly easier. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Good to know. Thanks Fuhghettaboutit! Lupine453 (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the standard bibliographic practice is to use something like [staff reporter] (in single square parentheses to show that you have supplied this information rather than taken it directly from the source); but [s.n.] (for Sine nomine), as used for books, would probably work for news sources too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Could someone review my newest wiki page?
I just created the page Palaye Royale and would love it if someone could review it for me. Thank you in advance. SoldierOfTheRoyalCouncil (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The article, Palaye Royale, is already being reviewed in a less friendly forum than this Teahouse, because it has been nominated for deletion. As the nominator mentioned (and you then agreed), the sources that you provided were social media, which are not reliable.  If I were reviewing the article as a draft, I would decline it on a combination of notability issues (the social media) and tone issues, because it contains peacock language in the voice of Wikipedia.  I would suggest that you move the article into user or draft space and work on both finding reliable sources and improving its tone.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

[User talk:SoldierOfTheRoyalCouncil|talk]] I'm new also and did the adventure too. The page is fine fine for us news, probably more trophies than me but maybe gibe a little info about your self?

Here's to the furture knowledge of the world.

DM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dormouse7 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I can't this minute cite chapter and verse, but I'm pretty sure that moving a page while it's at AfD is frowned on at the very least (it should be a doddle to make it technically impossible for non-admins, but that's a digression). Nor do I think moving it would save it from the outcome of the AfD, which does not bode well. Requesting that the AfD outcome be "move to draft space" might work, though. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Best practice for named attributions?
In some articles, especially in “Reception” sections and the like, there are lists of opinions and quotations attributed to names that appear nowhere else in the article: John Smith liked [subject], but said it lacked panache. Jimothy Jones was less favorable, comparing it to "a dry desert in high humitity". This seems to me to lack any contextual information, leaving the reader to wonder, Who are these people and why should I care?.

What is considered best practice for one-time-use names of critics or experts? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, IP editor. It would be helpful if you had given a specific (not hypothetical) example or two, but lacking those, I will make some general comments: The person quoted should, ideally, be a notable individual with demonstrated expertise regarding the topic being discussed. In other words, a professor holding a named chair at Harvard, whose entire career has been built around critical analysis of Author A is a vastly better source for critical commentary about Author A than a blogger without credentials who is obsessed with Author A. There is a wide continuum between these extremes, and it is consensus among editors interested in Author A that determines what should be included and what should be excluded. This is what we call "editorial judgment", who is an attribute that all active editors should cultivate. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  06:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Good question, ! This is a common (and annoying) practice in news reporting, which luckily we don't have to imitate. My personal take: unless the person is notable (what said, to which I'd add "with an article here"), he/she shouldn't be mentioned in the article text; the mention in the reference will be sufficient (and is required for attribution of a quotation). In that case the blue link in the name will be enough to tell us who the person is if we don't know. In other cases, it's enough to say "A New York Times review called it a …" or indeed "It has been described as a …", without naming the actual non-notable person – the reference will still tell us who said it, but it doesn't intrude in the text. Does that help? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note, though, that opinions do need to be attributed in the text, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The advice here seems a little contradictory. But my question was mainly about the presentation of the names, when they must be included per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV—do we just drop the name in with no preamble, or do we give a sentence about what qualifies each person as a credible source, or is either acceptable? In particular, the last paragraph of WTFPL prompted the question. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A citation should be enough to provide attribution, I think, ? WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV doesn't say anything specific about naming the opinion-holder in the text, only that attribution is required. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not if the opinion is stated as a fact,, as in the example given: "John Doe is the best baseball player". That would need to be attributed in the text, no? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * IP editor, I find the use of names at WTFPL rather odd. While links are provided and there is the "Individual open-source software developers and activists..." sentence, I do think that the individuals' credentials need to be explained, otherwise it just reads like a haphazard list of people's opinions. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That was the feeling I got from it as well, like we were picking people at random. How about something like, “Jeff Atwood, cofounder of programming question-and-answer website Stack Overflow, said …”? An improvement I think, though I’m not sure if that speaks to his knowledge of licensing (the subject’s field). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there an 'official' way to give a call to help when a controversial persons page hasn't been updated for more than year?
For example: Lord Christopher Monkton, nothing mentioned since 2014 but he's a highly vocal public speaker on anti EU and anti climate change issues. I see him a lot on You Tube and I want more people to record his recent actions/talks but I don't think referencing YT links count?

DM

Newb who has done the adventure but unsure how to call for additions to a current page and doubt my ability to add appropriate references :( But ... have corrected a typo!

Dormouse7 (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. The template you're looking for is Update. You could try slapping that on the article, but to be honest, I wouldn't be too hopeful that someone will act on it. If you are interested in updating the article, then that probably puts you ahead of the vast majority of editors in that regard! I think a YouTube video of, say, an interview that Monkton has give could be used as a source for the fact that he has said something (as opposed to a source for a factual statement about the EU or climate change), although if he appears on YouTube a lot, then the question of what you should include and what you should leave out arises. For this reason, it is often a better idea to rely on coverage in secondary sources (e.g. if something he said on a video was picked up and reported by a newspaper. On YouTube as a source, see also WP:YOUTUBE. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, I would suggest you be bold and go for it. The worst someone could do is revert the edit, and then you can start a conversation on the talk page of the article to discuss updating it. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You can check out Edit requests for guidance on how to request a specific edit. Unfortunately the requests are usually pretty back logged. But it looks like there are about 200 editors who have the page on their watchlist, and there have been some edits in recent days. So it might be better to just try posting about on the article talk page first.


 * Alternatively, you can try posting a suggestion on my talk and I will try to sort out how you make it. Timothy Joseph Wood  21:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk) Hope I'm replying correctly!

Thanks for that :) I'll try that re the update thing.  It's always hard with contaversial people!  It appears to be 'illegal' for the British press to mention anti climate changespeakers so LORD Monkton gets no obvious press in the UK :(

I think I personally need to do deeper research but am I OK to say something like this: "Monkton said XYX' and cite the YT ref?

Sorry for the Q's but heck, everyone has a voice if given in the right way hey; I'm trying to find that right way!?

Many, many thanks

DM (Dormouse7 (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC))
 * I disagree, . The BBC's commitment to impartiality seems to involve them putting one eminent climate scientist up against a politician (typically Nigel Lawson) who denies man-made climate change and treating them as if they both have equally valid views, despite the fact that the vast majority of scientific research backs the former's position. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I also think we need to be wary of using what Monkton says as a source for anything much, given his history of dishonesty. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]] Thank you; here in starts the dabate! I couldn't see anything to discredit his CC views on the Monkon wikipage which is where I started and I can find no climate change interview with Nigel Lawson on the Guardian or the Telegraph - maybe you could give me some links?

I don't see the BBC as impartial; there should be a page on that!

DM (Dormouse7 (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC))
 * Nor do I see the BBC as impartial. Giving equal weight to climate change deniers as to scientific consensus is not what impartiality should look like. As for Lawson and the Telegraph, how about this? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to say that the BBC is a reliable source on most issues. I would also say that the WP:FRINGE nature of what someone says, has little bearing on sourcing them as a source for what they've said with no comment on the truth value of those statement. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, . Cordless Larry (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Lynedia Sirieda Mathews
I was wondering why my article  was decline  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynedia Sirieda Mathews (talk • contribs) 22:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . The reason for the decline is given in the template at the top of Draft:Lynedia Sirieda Mathews and on your user talk page, User talk:Lynedia Sirieda Mathews. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said three months ago, it appears that it was meant to be your autobiography, the submission of which is discouraged, but it has no actual content. I had assumed that you had submitted an empty draft by accident.  Please take another look at it and see that it has no actual content.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding a UK Company's details
Just a thought .... I work for a UK company which has over 1000 employees. With directors authorisation, could I safely create a WIKI page for them and what safeguards would there be to stop angry ex-employees/competitors vandalising the page? I appreciate it can't be an advertisiment, only information and as a 'new' company (former very sucessful private partnership), anyone could add or change figures that came from public sources such as companies house or their other government auditors - which may be a killer for a private healthcare business.

I'd appreciate some advice on this or a pointer to somewhere else. As a new editor it's just a thought at how else I can share info with the world, other than my own personal stuff.

Many thanks

Dormouse7 (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Read the conflict of interest policy. No.  You should not, with or without directors' authorization, create a Wikipedia page for your company.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please consult Conflict of interest on this, . It strongly discourages you from creating or editing articles about your employer. Having to seek the authorisation of your employer only serves to heighten the prospect of a conflict of interest. If you are looking for something to work on, you could have a look through Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit and, when you have a little more experience, Requested articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If there is an article about your company, and it is vandalized, then that can be dealt with the same as any other vandalism, by reverting the vandalism and blocking the vandal. You do have a right to report vandalism of an article that affects you, just not to create or edit the article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Sorry, I didn't explain myself correctly. I would only create such a page in the sense of being that company (I am a senior administrator), the registration would be as a company, not my personal one. In this instance I am representing the company, not being the individual I am at present. I am an employee but I'm wondering if it would be beneficial for 'my' company to be on Wiki and am wondering if I should suggest it to them (directors). It would in no way be connected to DM; it would be a professional/legally recognised company account.

DM (Dormouse7 (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC))
 * Wikipedia's rules require that you edit as an individual, not with a company account, . Please see WP:CORPNAME on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, having a company account would go against Wikipedia's username policy, and it would immediately get indef blocked. As for creating a page for your company (which you could do with your personal account), that would be allowed but highly discouraged as a conflict of interest.  It would be requested that you put the connected contributor template on the article talk page.  If you were to be paid to create the page, it would be required that you put the the connected contributor (paid) template on the article talk page. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The bit that you're probably not aware of, (like most people unfamiliar with editing Wikipedia) is that Wikipedia does not contain company pages or company profiles. It contains articles about companies, (which is a rather different thing), which should be based almost 100% on what people unconnected with the company have published about it. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what a company (or its employees, agents, or associates) say about it, and the company has no control over what goes in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that you don't need anyone's permission to write an article about them, except in the case of when you want to use a copyrighted image. In that case, you should request permission to use the image (not permission to write the article) before uploading the image.  If you plan on asking your supervisor for anything, it should be permission to use copyrighted images (such as logos) and proof of permission, not for permission to write an article.  If you plan on asking for permission for such images, you should review the licenses that Wikipedia accepts for copyrighted content. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

However "inconvenient" information, that a company would rather not have publicized, such as court cases, investigations, redundancies etc. will be included, provided the information is from a reliable source, is presented from a neutral point of view and not given undue weight. To repeat; any such article will not be the companies page, but Wikipedia's article about the company - Arjayay (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You ask "what safeguards would there be to stop angry ex-employees/competitors vandalising the page?" as explained above, genuine vandalism can be reverted.

Just as a note to you can request that an article be written about your company over at WP:RA and it will be created as long as there are sources that prove notability. --MorbidEntree-(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) (Contribs) (please reply using ,(unless this is on my own talk page) otherwise I may not see your reply) 08:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it might be created if listed there,, but it's far from certain. See , further down this page. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Using files hosted on other Wikipedias (not Commons)
I'd like to know if it's possible to use a file hosted on a foreign language Wikipedia on EN.WP.

for example there is a file HU:Fájl:Z._Karvalics_László.jpg that's not on Commons and I'd like to use it in an EN.WP article.

Thanks! -  t u coxn \talk 16:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not possible. In order to use that image on English Wikipedia, you will need to re-upload it to either here or Commons. You can do such using File upload wizard. JudgeRM   (talk to me)  16:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Help with new article
Hi, I would like some advice about an article I have been trying to create about my employer. I recognize that this is a COI; however, I have done a lot of work that I believe results in a neutral and well-sourced result that would be a benefit to Wikipedia readers. I have already learned that my earlier efforts were not so good -- I did not have a good understanding of Wikipedia's standards when I first tried back in September 2015. So I can understand now why my previous attempts were rejected. I appreciate the patience of the Wikipedia editors who reviewed my various drafts, and have supported my learning about this.

But for my most recent submission, I thought I had learned enough, and modified my draft enough, that it would be sufficient. I removed some of the stuff with less sourcing, and kept the text very straightforward and true to the sources I did include. There are 10 sources; some of them (like the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and Chicago Business) focus specifically on A.J. Capital, and are well respected publications. However, the reviewer still determined that the sourcing is inadequate.

I am hoping somebody can help me understand my best path at this point. From my reading of the notability standard, AJ Capital and our founder Ben Weprin both meet the standard. Am I interpreting it wrong? Have I written the article wrong? Is it worth it to keep trying to improve the article, or will it never be accepted? -KarenR678 (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * When you ask about an article or draft article, it helps to link the page in question. Is it Draft:AJ Capital Partners?  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Robert McClenon, yes, that is the article I'm referring to. Could you please take a look and perhaps offer some advice for improving it? I understand there are reasonable concerns about COI editing but I have really tried to adhere to Wikipedia editing guidelines on this. KarenR678 (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * First, have you made the conflict of interest disclosure? Second, if required, have you made the paid editing disclosure?  Third, I will let other neutral editors comment on and possibly improve the draft.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Jimmy Lifton and IMDB
I reviewed Draft:Jimmy Lifton and declined it. A previous reviewer, User:GeneralizationsAreBad, had noted that IMDB is not a reliable source, and I declined it because I saw no material improvement. I then received the following question from User:Chad Berk.

Hi Robert, I really don't understand how to prove notability any better than I already have. Everything is linked and sourced to reliable sources. IMDb is a very credible site that will only credit a person if it is proven and known. Everything that is posted is cited corrected by the site. What more do I have to do?

Reviewers have long said that IMDB is not a reliable source because it includes non-verified user-provided content. Does anyone care to comment? Should the status of IMDB be reviewed? Should the author be advised to find other sources? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If you do a simple search on wikipedia for anything being claimed like winning an Emmy for Kung Fu Panda: legends of awesomeness or anything else that is listed there, pages come up on wikipedia that show the information being shared is correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kung_Fu_Panda:_Legends_of_Awesomeness is you scroll down to awards James Lifton is listed there for the exact aware claimedChad Berk (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but you can't use Wikipedia as a source for a Wikipedia article because it's all user-generated content. You can, however use the sources Wikipedia uses in that article. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The IMDb is user-generated content and thus unreliable. See User:Rhododendrites/Chaney as an example of why we can't rely on the IMDb.  The data is often correct, but it's too easy for hoaxes and errors to make their way into it.  Actors with similar names will sometimes have their credits mixed up, people will transcribe credits incorrectly, and some production details will be guessed at by fans.  See this interview with Michael Madsen for one perspective about the IMDb's reliability.  Madsen says many of the films listed in his IMDb filmography were added by overenthusiastic, young directors who overstated his involvement in their film.  Even if the IMDb were reliable, a database entry would not establish notability.  This is a problem that also sometimes occurs with rock bands. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, IMDb listings by themselves do not establish notability. Once notability is established by higher quality reliable sources, an external link to an IMDb page can be included, unless we have some evidence that the page is in error. Their official writing and rating credits are more reliable than their prose content, since they cooperate with Hollywood groups like Writers Guild of America and MPAA to verify the credits. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, external links are always fine. And anything that's been verified by an external authority is reliable – but you have to watch out for the the stuff that isn't.  As Michael Madsen said, you never really know who added or changed the content there, much like any other crowd-sourced database.  Like Wikipedia, the IMDb often links to reliable sources, so it's a great place to start your research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

New Project
Thanks for the invite. I have a multilingual subject dictionary project that I would like to start at wikipedia. I have prepared the seed work and listed the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/. I was wondering what happens next and is there another place I should be submitting the proposal? Soubanikhaled (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . What you have proposed at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Quran Dictionary appears to be a new wiki, not a Wikipedia WikiProject. There's nothing to stop you from setting up your own wiki-based site, but I don't see how this could be hosted by Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

What is the Edit Filter Log?
I only recently discovered this tonight as I was looking through, and familiarising myself with, the WP:Warnings templates. I noticed that there was a template for warning users of 'triggering an edit filter', and now I'm wondering... what exactly is the Edit Filter? ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . The edit filter is software that scrutinizes edits for problematic changes, such as possible vandalism. It can take a variety of corrective measures depending on the circumstances. Please see Edit filter for details. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your swift reply . I've seen an IP User who is continuously appearing on the Edit Filter Log, who has been reverting large chunks of content without using their edit summary to explain why they're doing this. It appears that they're actions are vandalism as the content they're removing sourced content and not explaining they're reasons behind doing this – in this scenario, would it be worth using the subst:uw-attempt to see if this user will stop vandalising the page they are after this warning has been issued? My other question is, if they continue to trigger the edit filter after being provided with a warning, how do I get the IP address blocked? Thank you in advance for your cooperation. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello . My understanding is that the edit filter warnings are given out by the edit filter software itself, but I am not an expert in this area. Have you tried to converse with the IP editor? If asking them to stop does not work, and the edits are truly vandalism, then try the escalating vandalism warning templates. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll try and converse with them now and see if they'll stop. Thank you again for your swift and helpful replies. All the best. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Are the edits to a particular article? If so, you may request semi-protection.  (How likely you are to get semi-protection will depend on the extent to which an administrator agrees that the edits are disruptive.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes,, they are. I'd never edited the List of WWE Network events as I haven't an interest in wrestling, but I saw a user who keeps reverting their edits. According to the Edit Filter Log they're unexplaining their reasons for reverting sourced content as well as removing references. I have undone one of their edits as they removed a lot of content from the page without explaining why they had done this. I've also left a message on the IP User's user talk page to see if they'll cooperate, but your suggestion about requesting semi-protection if an administrator does agree the edits are disruptive, could be helpful. Thank you for your suggestion. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey ElectrodeandtheAnode. I noticed that you only partially reverted the IP's edits (another editor fixed this later), using the limited undo function. If possibly you're not aware, when there's more than one edit that needs fixing, you can perform a manual revert to any version of a page in its history. Just click on the date in the history you want to revert to (here it would have been the date before the IP's last edit) → click edit at the top of the page → save (leaving an edit summary of course). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of unreferenced section
When a section in an article has no references but does start with "Main article: xxxx", is it appropriate to add the unreferenced section template to it? (I've been adding unreferenced section to many sections of the article Norwegian language, but I'm wondering if the link to 'Main article' means that all references will be found there. Personally I'd rather not have to click through to many main articles to find references!)  Thank you. --Hordaland (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . I've edited your post slightly, to prevent the template displaying here. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As for your question, I agree with you that readers shouldn't have to click through to another article, find the material that is being summarised in the section of the article that have come from, and then look at the source. So, yes, I think that template is appropriate here. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are quick! Thank you.  I was just fixing up the formatting & got edit conflict.
 * I'm glad you agree with my position. I'll go back to the article and continue adding the template to it.--Hordaland (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at that article, it might be easier to just use Unreferenced at the top of the article, rather than tagging individual sections when the majority of them are unsourced, . Cordless Larry (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be easier. However, Template:Unreferenced states:  "This template should only be used on articles that have no citations or references at all. Don't add this template to articles that contain even one general reference, parenthetical reference, or citation-containing footnote. ..."  So I won't be doing that.  Thanks, anyway.  --Hordaland (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , You can use though. -- GB fan 12:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, - I meant to suggest using the template  identifies, but it was early in the morning! Cordless Larry (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Another NOT-a-morning-person, eh? Me, too!  --Hordaland (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

How do I add citations when a piece is used more than once without using multiple numbers?
When recently creating my first wikipedia article, I ran into some trouble with citations. I used two sources, but each was used multiple times and so I used the ref tags for each one. However, this created 6 references with only 2 sources and showed a list of 6 when using reflist. How do I make it so that every time a source is used, it's number shows up (i.e. 1 for source one, no matter how many times it is used)? Thanks, MTwikiuser (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey MTwikiuser. The first time you use a reference, give it an intuitive name, in this form:

The next time you want to use that same citation, just use the first part with a closing slash (don't forget the closing slash):
 * For more information please see Help:Referencing for beginners. Note that you don't technically need the quote marks around the name you choose unless the name you pick has a space in it (like the one I used), but many people use them always. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Everything that said is correct. But I always use a one word mnemonic, so I do not need to mess around with those pesky quotation marks. I usually use the author's surname, a keyword from the title, or an abbreviation for the name of the publication. For example, LAT is the Los Angeles Times in my mind. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  02:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Advice
Hello,

I could use some advice from a more experienced editor of Wikipedia.

On a page I am working on, Suzanne Dando, there are some details in her personal life section, that I don't think should be included.

I would like to remove the section that "she had a long relationship with former footballer Andy Gray until it ended", as I don’t think it needs to be included, as a lot of celebrities have relationships that end and they aren't always listed.

I wondered if it might be possible to have some advice on this please?

Many thanks

GRT200 (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, .Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. As the content was unsourced I have removed it. Theroadislong (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The article lists her as BEM, which has no appropriate meaning in the disambiguation for that acronym. Should that be MBE?  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * BEM is correct—she was awarded the British Empire Medal before it was discontinued. &#8209; Iridescent 19:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, I will add that to the BEM disambiguation. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been there since 2005. &#8209; Iridescent 07:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help with this.

GRT200 (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)