Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 506

How to get Wiki App for ipad
I have the app for my mac and would like to get one for my ipad. I'm still a neophyte when it comes to computers even though I have this nice machine. 97.88.206.74 (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello IP user. You can get the official Wikipedia app for iPad (and iPhone) here. For iPad only you could also get Simplepedia or other apps (most of them you have to pay for, though). Alternatively, you could just access Wikipedia using the Safari web browser or other third-party browser like you would on a desktop. JudgeRM   (talk to me)  16:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel I should mention that Wikipedia does have a mobile site you can use. Go to https://en.m.wikipedia.org to access the English version of it. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I made a quick fix on the dead link of an wiki page.But someone removed it.What is the best way to keep your answer safe?
I found a dead link in a page.So i removed the link and added a valid link.But it got removed by someone.I am not getting why my work got removed?Can you please help me with it?Gopatholabs (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You must be talking about this edit. I can't say for sure why  reverted your edit as there was no edit summary, but I can make an educated guess.  Your edit was probably undone because you added a blog as a reference and you appear to be associated with that blog.  Most blogs are not considered reliable sources.  Also you shouldn't be linking to things you are closely associated with.  -- GB fan 11:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * (EC) I suppose you're referring to this edit. As far as I can see, the link you replaced was not broken, so your edit summary ('broken link fix for smoking article') was simply a lie. Next, the newly linked page does not support the presented facts about nitrosamines, so removing the old link decreased the article's quality. Additionally you've added a comment in a highly personal tone to the article ('Smoking's good side is also there'), which is not appropriate in Wikipedia. And finally, the link you added links to a blog page – such sources are generally not considered reliable enough for Wikipedia. That's why your edit has been reverted. And you can't do much to keep such edits 'safe' in a future. --CiaPan (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * you have asked the same question at the Help Desk, and received similar answers. Asking the same question in two or more places is discouraged, and likely to annoy those who are here to help you. Maproom (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note- OP now blocked for spamming. Nthep (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I need help about editing a mathematical article.
Hi ! I think that the "Algebraic structure" article is quite imprecese about Ring-like structures, and I would be pleased to help to reorganize it a bit. However I would like to submit my modifications to a more experienced editor before posting them. Is it possibile ? How can I do ? Algebraonly (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . I suggest posting about your proposed changes at Talk:Algebraic structure. That alone might attract the attention of editors who have worked on the article in the past, but you could also post a short note at over on the talk page of WikiProject Mathematics, asking for input. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * (ec) Hi, Algebraonly, if you do not want to modify the article yourself, you can propose appropriate changes on the article's talk page: Talk:Algebraic structure (similary to your proposal on Talk:Antiderivative (complex analysis) in February). Just click the 'plus' tab there, or simply follow this link to start a new section. --CiaPan (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your replies !

I will follow your advices. Algebraonly (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Community help with creating an author page
Hello, my name is Susan M. Parr and I'm the author of a book, Pacific Shooter (Pleiades Press, 2009). I've run into a problem that at first appears unrelated to Wikipedia: if one searches for my book on Google, the search results return the wrong author. Moreover, because of this, I'm associated with several books that I didn't write. I have an ongoing thread on the Google Search Help Forum; Google is aware of the problem, but doesn't seem inclined to do anything about it.

Google pulls Wikipedia data into their search results, and an author page on Wikipedia could help fix the error. My name does appear on this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_American_Poetry_2007, but I've always respected the guidelines about creating a page specifically about myself! My question is: can I request community help with creating a very simple author page? If I can associate the book's ISBN number, title, and my full name, there is some hope that the Google search error will be fixed. Thanks so much. 66.212.64.169 (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, Susan. Thank you for respecting the guidelines and asking here. I'm afraid that there is no such thing as an "author page" in Wikipedia. We have articles on many notable topics, including authors. If you are notable in Wikipedia's special sense - i.e. there exist several substantial pieces of writing about you by people who have no connection to you, published in reliable places - then there can be an article about you: you could place a request at Requested articles (though there is a big backlog there), or perhaps if you added citations to those sources here, somebody might pick it up. But if such sources do not exist, then I'm afraid that there cannot be an article about you. (This would be a start in establishing notability for Pacific Shooter - if there is another such review of it, then it might merit an article - but doesn't contain enough about you, in my opinion, to ground an article about you. --ColinFine (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Susan, with regard to the Google Knowledge Graph that confuses you with Susan Sherwood Parr, there is a "Feedback" link at the bottom of that box, which you can click on and point out the error. (After you click on "Feedback", click on the pencil icon after "Author: Susan Sherwood Parr" and explain what's wrong.) I'm not sure how long it takes for someone over at Google to act on such corrections. Deor (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Contacting a person
RickinBaltimore (talk) had left me a message to contact him, but under user page and talk there is no way to do so.

My question is how to contact this person in response to his query? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge searcher 1 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * @Knowledge searcher 1: Go to User talk:RickinBaltimore, click the "New section" tab, and type a message. That's the preferred way to contact a person: via their user talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And when responding to posts in the same section, go to the section where your message was left, look at the title, and click "edit." I've seen people repeatedly hit "new section" for every single post because they never bothered to look for the "edit" button. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, you rang? Feel free to click the link that says "Talk" next to my name and create a new section. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Problem with an edit
When I posted an asked-for citation to my husband Robert Perless's bio, it set off an edit because I had also posted a photo (and he supplied the proper forms as owner of the work and photographer. The edit does not successfully conceptualize one point, about the highly unusual and broadly written-about house and studio complex that he literally built. This is germane to his work as a sculptor in metal, because he built the house in metal, which is extremely unusal. I know that my contributing to his bio is considered COI, but I am knowledgeable about architecture. Is there a way I can edit his entry?

BTW, the Robert Kiyosaki bio appears to be extremely promotional and florid. How did they get away with it?

Eperless (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * it would be best if you discussed the issues about the Robert Perless article on its talk page., who reverted your edits, may want to take part in the discussion.
 * As for Robert Kiyosaki: it is remarkable how an article written in such promotional language can leave the reader with such a negative impression of the man. Maproom (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Ye gods, what a hagiography... thoroughly sand-blasting the Kiyosaki article would take more work than I am willing to put in O_o -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone marked the Robert Kiyosaki page with a POV notice., I suggest you take your complaint about the non-neutral POV of the page to the article's talk page.  Remember to click "New section" when starting the discussion, as no one seems to have started the discussion yet. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I was just asking, but as Elmidae more or less says, it would be like cleaning out the Augean stables to correct the Kiyosaki article. As a new contributor, I am not qualified to do so. But it is clear that the dispassionate "just the facts, ma'am" POV has been ignored by the author.

Eperless (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not likely to get deleted, either, as the article was created all the way back in 2004. It's possible, judging by the page history, that the user Backendgaming is responsible. -- Gestrid (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Userbox templates
Why most userboxes are created under some user's userspace?

As Userboxes/Animals and Userboxes/Cars.

Rainbow Archer (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * They don't qualify for inclusion in template space unless they are specifically about Wikipedia. Therefore, most are hosted in userspace. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

draft of personal page
Draft:Gavin Ross

hello..i am building a personal profile and have made edits based on the moderators suggestions. He also suggested to come to this page and see if the page is acceptable now.

is it possible for someone to review? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gavin_Ross

Fongool (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and does not include "personal profiles". If that is what you want, then LinkedIn is the leading website for that sort of thing, although there are several others to choose from, but not Wikipedia. When you say "personal profile", that implies that you are Gavin Ross and are trying to write an autobiography, which is highly discouraged though not forbidden. Autobiographies are subject to a very high level of scrutiny. Why do you think that you are notable enough for a Wikipedia biography, and are you prepared for the level of scrutiny that you will get? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying Cullen. I am not Gavin Ross. I work as a seo for Gavin Ross and Co. He is quite well known for his investment advice. he was host on a national Australian radio show for 19 years, has published a book, been a writer on a number of publications. So, i thought he might qualify. I am also seo for this man who has a wiki page and i thought their career paths were very similar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Kohler

Fongool (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you work for Gavin Ross, then you have a conflict of interest, and must comply with our COI policies. You must also complete our mandatory paid editing disclosure. Please do so immediately. Thank you. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * That means you have a conflict of interest (commonly referred to as a COI), which is also strongly discouraged but again not forbidden. Remember that your article must be from a neutral point of view.  It would also be best (though it's not required) to declare your conflict of interest on your draft's talk page by following the instructions here.  If you're being paid to create the page, it's required that you declare your conflict of interest by following a different set of instructions here. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * ahhh...i guess i am employed by the client. i never thought of it that way.

i am a little confused then. Where do i add this connected contributor (paid) and what else do i need to add. it says to fill in the (and to fill in the parameters)but i cant see these.

Fongool (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have edited the comment above, so that the template does not transclude here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * hello cullen..i believe i have added the right info to the draft page declaring my affiliation with Gavin Ross. Is this ok https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gavin_Ross

Fongool (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion,, you should place the declaration on your now blank redlinked user page. Since you mention Alan Kohler, do you have any connection with , who added unreferenced content to that biography a few weeks ago? I have reverted that unreferenced material. Do not edit that article since you are a paid editor. Your input should be limited to the talk page, and please provide references for any of your paid edits. Thank you. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The connected contributor (paid) template should only be used if you're getting paid specifically to edit Wikipedia. An example of this is if your employer pays you to promote their business.  While they don't specifically say to create a Wikipedia article for them, you would still be getting paid for creating the article.  If you're not getting paid for creating the Wikipedia article, but you're still employed by, well, your employer, you'll want to use the connected contributor template instead.
 * Also, as Cullen mentioned, you should declare your COI on your userpage as well by either using either the paid template (for editors paid for their Wikipedia edits in the way I mentioned above) or UserboxCOI (for editors who are still connected to the subject but are not getting paid to edit Wikipedia). -- Gestrid (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I dont understand what my blank redlinked user page is? If i have done the wrong thing by the Wiki guidelines then i dont know how or what i should do. I dont want to waste anyones time on this. I just thought by adding factual content without trying to promote the business that it would be passed. All i want to do is add a profile on Gavin Ross because he has a good reputation as a "financial advisor' in Australia. I would say more people are interested in who Gavin Ross is rather than what he does. He advises the wealthiest of "families" in this country. And his persona is what makes him successful. So, i thought a profile for him would be warranted.

please advise...thanks Fongool (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be User:Fongool, . I would reiterate that we don't host "profiles" - only neutral, encyclopedic biographies. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You did create an article with a conflict of interest, but you obviously didn't know about our policies. You did the right thing by coming here to let us help you.  You haven't knowingly done anything wrong.
 * Also, a red link on Wikipedia just means a page with that name hasn't been created yet, such as your userpage. It doesn't mean anything bad at all. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Cordless Larry...Then there seems no point in carrying on with this. I was just creating a "biogarphy" as an aside for the client. my role for them is SEO. But i thought the client might be impressed by my efforts if i created a wiki profile for him. he is a very prominent person of note. like i said he hosted a national radio show in Australia for 19 years and also lectured at Australia's most known University of Melbourne for 2 years.

if this doesnt qualify can you please let me know Fongool (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say there was no point in carrying on, but I have taken a look at your draft and in its present state it is certain to be declined, . You have used references mostly to link to the homepages of organisations mentioned in the article. This is not the purpose of referencing. References should consist of the details of sources that support the material in the article, so as to verify its accuracy. Please see Verifiability, Identifying reliable sources and Help:Referencing for beginners. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying again Larry. let me go away and ask the client for more in depth references to back up his claims. How i set the page up is ok? Do i just need the references to be more precise? And i used his image which i have permission. Do i need to have more proof to use this image?

Fongool (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not so much an issue of precision,, but that the sources actually support what you write in the article. For example, you state that Ross "is well known through his popular weekly investment talkback program". The reference is a link to the programme's webpage. That's not a reference. What you need is a reliable source stating that he is well known for presenting the show. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If your job is Search engine optimization for Gavin Ross, and you are trying to create a "profile" of your client on Wikipedia, the world's #6 website which consistently shows near the top of Google searches, then it seems very clear to me that your efforts are a part of your job, . What say you? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a few not very nice, but I think civil, comments. First, a paid editor who doesn't have a knowledge of the Wikipedia culture, such as who refers to draft articles as "profiles", is an editor either whose client has wasted their money or who has misrepresented their qualifications to their client.  Second, any paid editor isn't entitled to quick review of their draft, and should wait in turn rather than asking a reviewer, on their talk page, for a quick review.  Third, any paid editor who has to "go away and ask the client for more" is a paid editor who didn't understand enough about Wikipedia in the first place so that they shouldn't have accepted the job without further background research.  You didn't do anything wrong, but, in my view, you and your client made an unwise choice for you to write an article without adequate knowledge of what Wikipedia expects.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Cordless Larry and Robert for all your feedback. I dont care how brutal or honest your are. I prefer it that way. Now, i have a much clearer understanding of Wikipedia. I was never trying to create this page for "profit". These type of people i work for have egos and i just wanted to create a wikipedia profile for the client. He doesnt even know i am doing it. Its not part of my job description. And i like to do these sort of things to see if i can do it. I am going to get all the relevant info and links to back up the claims and see f i can get it right.

Thanks for all the time you have spent explaining things to me. Fongool (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You managed to add this comment to a different section, so I have moved it here. --ColinFine (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Colors to use for Template:Navbox
I want to create a new navbox, but am confused what the best practices here are.

Is there a color convention? I see pink and blue used across wiki.Situphobos (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Greetings Situphobos and Welcome to the Teahouse! While I am no expert regarding Templates & Navboxes, there is guidance at Navigation templates that may help answer your question. If anyone else here at TH has more info, please chime in. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Uploading a Headshot to an Approved Wiki Article
Hello! I am trying to upload a photo to a created Wikipedia page B. Wayne Hughes, Jr.. How do I go about doing this and how do I give proper credits for the photo? Thank you Oceanprofiles (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to start with the copyright holder of the photograph, this is usually the photographer. The copyright holder of the photograph needs to release the image with a compatible copyright.  Who owns the copyright of the photograph you want to use?  -- GB fan 15:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I'm not sure quite what you mean by "an approved photo", but if you mean that it has been approved by Hughes or his organisation or agents, Wikipedia is wholly uninterested in that. The role of the subject of an article or their agents is limited to suggesting changes on the article's talk page: there is no question of approval, except by a consensus of Wikipedia editors.
 * The fact that you talk about "approval", coupled with your username, makes me wonder if you are part of an organisation working for Hughes. If that is the case, please be aware of the recommendations on editing with a conflict of interest, and the requirements on anybody who is in any way paid to edit. Also, if your username is indeed the name of a company, it is contrary to the Username policy, and you should change it.
 * Having said all that, adding a picture to an article is something which is not usuall regarded as problematic for a COI editor, as long as the image is freely licensed as required. Please see donating copyright materials. When you have sorted out the licence, use the Upload wizard to upload it to Wikimedia Commons. --ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * When I saw "approved photo", I immediately thought they had permission from the copyright holder to upload it. (Not necessarily under the correct copyright, mind you.)  Of course, I could be reading it wrong. -- Gestrid (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the OP changed the wording, by, from "an approved photo" to "a photo". Please note, , that it causes confusion to change the wording after a question has been answered.  The recommendation in such a case would be to strike out the text rather than delete it, so   would be rendered as "a n approved photo". --David Biddulph (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I dispute something
How do I state my case without editing the article? Or should I just throw my argument it into the article? David L Morris (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Start a thread on the article's talk page so other editors can discuss the issue. Meters (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

19 July 2016
How to make Guestbook? Can u please help me to make my Guestbook?  Tiger Gang  Talk    06:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe this user may be talking about Guestbooks with this Guestbook thing. It's the first I've heard of this kind of thing on Wikipedia, so I'll let someone else answer. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You already created your guestbook. What help do you need actually? Ayub 407 talk 07:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, based only on what I see, we have an editor, User:Tiger Gang, and maybe other editors, who are really only interested in asking questions and not in doing anything to enhance Wikipedia. I may be too quick to make this judgment.  If you have a specific question, please ask it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Previously i don't know to make guestbook but i have tried it and i got success. Please sign my Guestbook. THANKS.  Tiger Gang  Talk    02:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , as it says at Guestbooks, it's strongly discouraged to ask others to sign your guestbook, and it can even get you temporarily blocked. I'm not reporting you or anything like that.  This is just a warning.  I suggest you read the page I just mentioned before you go forward with your guestbook. -- Gestrid (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If we sign guestbook then can we get barnstar. How to get it?  Tiger Gang  Talk    02:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone will notice your good performance with whatever the barnstar would be for (in this case, a guestbook) and award it to you. They're not "official" rewards like the Golden Globes or anything.  They're something a user gives you when they notice you've been doing a good job, for example, fighting against vandalism. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are more likely to get good performance noticed and get barnstars by providing good performance in improving Wikipedia than by treating it like a game and asking silly questions. Mostly you have just taken Wikipedia like a game or joke.  You have created one article, your one contribution to Wikipedia.  Find more references to support its notability, and stop asking silly questions and treating Wikipedia like a joke.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Can U Say Some of the options to get rewards?

 Tiger Gang  Talk    03:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know of a list anywhere, but, as suggested, you should edit more articles, revert obvious vandalism, and basically edit Wikipedia articles in a good way.  (Just remember to use reliable sources and to cite your sources.)  If you do that well, you'll get noticed and get a barnstar.  Actually, if you don't edit just to get barnstars, you'll probably be more likely to get barnstars. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Switch between edit and edit source
The Afrikaans Wikipedia has both "edit" and "edit source" at the top of each article. How do I easily switch between the two in the English Wikipedia? Regards Vaaljapie (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you're asking how to turn on the Visual Editor, all you have to do is go to this page, make sure the option that says "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta" is unchecked, make sure "Editing mode" is set to "Show me both editor tabs", and click "Save" at the bottom of the page.  Please reply here if you run into any trouble. -- Gestrid (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ... and so quick! Vaaljapie (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Please help
Please help me. I had a Wikipedia Page, List of Fatal Shark Attacks in California, and it was fine. But, someone messed it up. They ruined it, and now all my info is in the Refernces section. When I got into the Refernces section, all that is their is just The Refernces line, not my list. But, in the section with the list, their nothing showing up. When I go to edit that section, all the stuff is their. Why is it not showing up in the right place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Shakiba (talk • contribs) 04:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC) The article in question is List of fatal shark attacks in California. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. I noticed your table was missing a closing brace, so I added it. I think this addresses the problem you were talking about. If not, please let me know. Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC) [And added the Reference section heading]
 * Hello, . I just wanted to let you know that I tagged your article with the orphan template.  This is nothing to worry about at all.  It basically just means that you should link to your article in relevant articles (like articles that have to do with shark attacks) so others will find your article more easily.  After you've linked to the article in a few other relevant articles, then you can remove the tag by removing  from the top of the article in "Edit source".  Currently, the article isn't linked at any other relevant Wikipedia articles. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Ryan Shakiba. Since you seem quite new to Wikipedia, let me also point out the we as editors do not have "Wikipedia pages" per se. We do not have any ownership rights over the articles we create or edit, and once something has been added to the article namespace, it's there for anyone anywhere in the world to edit at anytime they want. In fact, we do not even own our user pages.
 * FWIW, articles tend to be improved over time through collaborative editing, which sometimes may mean that "our preferred version" is not what the rest of the Wikipedia community prefers. Any edit we make can be undone just as quickly as we made it. We hope that our edits will be improved upon over time by others, but sometime they are not. In this particular case, it looks you simply forgot to add the closing brace referred to above by the when you initially created the table, and that it wasn't mistakenly removed by another editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

how can we change logo of the business
how can we change logo of the business Vaibhav Mahadik (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Are you connected with Kalnirnay? In general, you should be very cautious about making changes to an article about a company you are connected with, because of your Conflict of interest: if you have a connection, you should stop editing the article (and if you are in any way paid in connection with it, you must make a declaration according to WP:PAID). However, updating the logo should not be a problem. You need to upload the new version of the logo (most logos on Wikipedia are non-free files, and may only be used in a way which conforms to all the conditions in the WP:non-free content criteria: go to the image page of the existing logo, and pick "Upload a new version of this file". See Logos for more information. By the way, I have removed some promotional language from the lead. I am dubious whether the article actually establishes that the subject is notable.  --ColinFine (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Article
I would like to object to the deletion of a article with my own reasons on the subject. Can somebody direct me to a source where the required steps to do so are present or do I respond on the article page itself by removing the deletion template along with the timestamp, the reason for deletion and add my justification for non-deletion. Regards Capn Swing (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . You have already put your reasons at the only place that is appropriate, Articles for deletion/Firefly algorithm. But, in my view, your reasons are not to the point. Wikipedia is not interested in how significant, important, innovative, virtuous, or any other measure of goodness, its subjects are (we have many articles on horrible and vile subject). It is only interested in whether enough independent reliable material has been published on a subject to ground a neutrally-written article: the Wikipedia jargon for this is whether the subject is notable or not. That is nearly the only question relevant to deletion, and you would be well advised to focus your argument on this matter. Please see WP:DISCUSSAFD. --ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply, I have noted your advice in regards with those views. Actually, I was referring to the article on grey wolf optimizer. In any case, thanks for your time and input. Capn Swing (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, I guessed wrong. This is why it's always worth linking to the article you're talking about. --ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , if you want to object to the deletion of grey wolf optimizer, all you have to do is remove the tag. It is best when you remove the tag to explain either in an edit summary or on the talk page why you are removing it.  The proposed deletion process is the only one where anyone can just remove the tag to stop the process.  If you do remove the tag, someone might nominate it at WP:AFD. -- GB fan 11:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

mediation necessary?
is dispute resolution necessary before posting a grievance in ANI? --HamedH94 (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . It depends what the issue is, really. If it is a simple content dispute and you have already tried discussing things on the article's talk page, then I would suggest pursuing dispute resolution. However, user conduct issues should probably be taken to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or another appropriate venue such as Administrator intervention against vandalism. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I would love to have an editor help me!
I am trying to write a page for a Hollywood Producer and Book Publisher/Editor and it keeps being deleted. Can one of the editors please contact me to help me get this up to par so it can be approved and stay up?

Wildeyedeagle (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, sure! If you could post the name of the person, that would be appreciated. Thanks!  Programming Geek  (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 16:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Under this account, it appears that you have not made any edits that have been deleted. You submitted Draft: Webster Stone, and it was declined (not deleted) and you were recently advised that it had been untouched for five months.  It is still there, but you need to improve it based on my previous comments.  If you want advice in improving it, this is a good place to ask for advice.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Help formatting this table
Hi, I'm building a table (below), but I need a little help with the formatting. I'd like the first column to be wide enough so the date will sit on one line, and I want for last column, the numbers to be flush right.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.  Kamel Tebaast  17:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * try this


 * Nthep (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you!  Kamel Tebaast  17:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I should have added Help:Table is a valuable asset in understanding the intricacies of formatting tables. Nthep (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Correcting error without source
I have noticed an error in an article, but there is no secondary source that agrees with me. What are the next steps to correcting the article? I have already discussed the issue extensively on the talk page and filed a dispute resolution. Neither have been successful. Gordon410 (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if the issue is the obvious one, which is Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, then other editors would not call it an "error", because it appears that you have an opinion that is not backed up by scholarly sources but is original research. It appears that you want to offer your own opinions that are contrary to those of scholars, and that editors think are contrary to those of scholars.  In that case, there isn't a whole lot that you can do with regard to Wikipedia.  A better approach would be to try to publish your analysis in a peer-reviewed publication.  If the area of dispute in question is different, please let us know what the area is.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. "It appears that you want to offer your own opinions that are contrary to those of scholars, and that editors think are contrary to those of scholars." You misunderstand the issue. I only want to clarify opinions of scholars. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with them. Is this understandable? Thank you for your response. Gordon410 (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by clarifying the opinions of the scholars? The statement that you only want to clarify the opinions of the scholars seems inconsistent with your previous statement that there is an error in Wikipedia.  However, does Wikipedia accurately reflect what the scholars have written?  If so, we don't need to clarify, and any "clarification" that isn't in their own writings would be original research.  If what Wikipedia says is inconsistent with what the scholars have written, then Wikipedia should be corrected.  Please clarify what you think should be clarified.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "...any "clarification" that isn't in their own writings would be original research." Well, maybe you can help me understand the do's and don't's of original research. It appears that I do not have a grasp on it. For example, why did Urselius, one of the editors, replace the word genocide with extermination? Would you call that original research? Thank you for your response. Gordon410 (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Gordon410 - Your question seems to be changing as we discuss. At first you said that there was an error.  Then say that you want to clarify what the scholars wrote.  Then you ask about a change in wording by another editor between two words that have almost the same meaning.  What is the question?  It seems to keep changing.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To add somewhat to that, the job of Wikipedia is to reflect what reliable sources have written. In a historical article, that means to reflect what historians and other scholars have written.  It appears that the issue that the original poster has is not so much only with Wikipedia as with scholarly opinion, that he thinks that scholarly opinion has missed a point.  It is sometimes true that scholarly opinion misses a point and needs correction, but it isn't the job of Wikipedia to provide that correction.  There is only an error in Wikipedia if Wikipedia misrepresents scholarly opinion.  In this case the original poster seems to think that there is an error in scholarly opinion.  That isn't the job of Wikipedia to correct.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Question
Hello Everyone, How to review new articles?  Tiger Gang  Talk    08:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I see that you've asked the same question as, below , using the same wording. I'd already noticed that the two of you were interacting quite closely for new editors. Do you know each other? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger Gang (talk • contribs) 10:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. It does seem remarkable that you (correctly) nominated Classtime for speedy deletion one minute after ‎MasterPiece2016 created it, and are now asking identical questions here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

what are you talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterPiece2016 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC) ‎
 * User:Cordless Larry's remarks are clear to me and it is a pity they are not clear to you. Thincat (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just noting that you are both new and there are significant overlaps in your edits. For example, you nominated Office of the Status of Women for speedy deletion, and notified the article's creator. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why don't just send them to WP:SPI? To be sure if they "is" the same person.  333-blue  10:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:SPI, like many reporting forums, is backlogged. I would prefer not to see it used on idle suspicion.  I agree that it does appear that they are playing games rather than trying to contribute to Wikipedia, and that they need a certain amount of patience as new users, but that there are limits to how patient we should be.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, but I already opened Sockpuppet investigations/Sarojupreti. There is also a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (I didn't realise this when I opened the SPI). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm trying not to bite the newcomers,, while also attempting to work out what is going on! Cordless Larry (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry about that.  333-blue  11:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems to be three school children from Shree Harikul Model Higher Secondary School User:Tiger Gang, User:MasterPiece2016 and User:Nepali keto62 having some fun, but clearly WP:NOTHERE. Theroadislong (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

yes we are from same school. But user:MasterPiece is against us because he has less contributions than us. So he is trying to implcit us.  Tiger Gang  Talk    01:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * ...interesting?  A dog 104  Talk to me 01:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Please help us from being blocked.  Tiger Gang  Talk    02:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To avoid being blocked, edit constructively, do not play games, discuss your edits on talk pages, and heed the advice of more experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Users now blocked for sockpuppetry. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser
Does this tool help to check spelling mistakes and referencing error? Rainbow Archer (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , yes AutoWikiBrowser does as long as you specify the spelling mistakes and referencing errors you are looking for. Before you use AWB please bear in mind that you are responsible for every edit you make with it and that the capacity to make large numbers of incorrect edit is always present. Nthep (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Let me add a couple real examples to explain why care is important. If you are correcting spelling errors and correct the spelling of "basket-ball" to "basketball", as many edotors have done, that will be incorrect when done in Timeline of women's basketball, where the spelling "basket-ball" is correct. If you change the spelling of "chuse" to "choose", as someone asked me to do today in United States presidential line of succession that will be incorrect. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Article keep declined.
Dear All,

My article keep declined and kindly advise how to improve to get approve by Wikipedia. I have provided references to proved that he was well known top leader for our country. Nanda kyaw (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aung_Zan_Wai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanda kyaw (talk • contribs) 09:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . It seems clear to me that Aung Zan Wai meets our notability guideline for politicians as a former cabinet secretary in the government of Burma (Myanmar). He is also notable as an important witness to the 1947 assassination of the father of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi when her father was Prime Minister. I suggest that you mention his cabinet ministries more clearly in the beginning of the article, make it clear that he witnessed the assassination and testified at the trial of the assassin. Your third source is very solid. Sources in Burmese are acceptable as well. Perhaps, who declined the draft, can comment further. This biography belongs in the encyclopedia with just a bit more work. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  17:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think so, but only one is accessable, like Cullen said, just a bit more, and then, it is suitable for Wikipedia.  333-blue  07:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources need to be accessible,, but not necessarily accessible online. Accessible in a reference library is perfectly OK. What evidence do you have that the other sources are inaccessible? Our core content policy on Verifiability says: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." Please reconsider. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hum, it seems like that it is OK, but I have a suggestion to add into the article: how did he die?  333-blue  07:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank so much <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328 for your advise.  333-blue  I have updated his political participation and how he died. Please kindly review and approve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanda kyaw (talk • contribs) 03:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC) ✅ - Approved by another reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

User reverts / edit waring
Background: User:1 changes something controversial in a sentence [following WP:BRD], but also adds one thing into the sentence that is sourced and not controversial. User:2 either reverts the entire sentence or re-edits the sentence, deleting the non-controversial edit.

Is this acceptable? Should this be discussed on the Talk page? Is there a policy against this? Should User:2 be warned? Thank you for the feedback. <span style="font-size:smaller;:'arial bold',;border:1px solid Black;"> Kamel Tebaast  16:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * All content issues should be discussed on talk pages. If User 2 reverted both a controversial edit and a non-controversial edit, the revert of the non-controversial edit may have been an honest mistake.  It would be appropriate for User 1 both to restore the non-controversial edit once and to discuss both edits on the talk page.  I see no need for a warning in this case, because it is likely a mistake by User 2.  If User 2 insists that they were right in reverting both parts of the edit, then that is controversy and the entire matter has become controversial and should be discussed.  Do you have a specific example?  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is the example. I added two (benign) edits: Gan HaShlosha National Park and Reshafim and User:2 deleted them both, along with the more controversial edits. Thank you. <span style="font-size:smaller;:'arial bold',;border:1px solid Black;"> Kamel Tebaast  19:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Continue discussion on the article talk page. Editors should be aware that ArbCom discretionary sanctions apply to articles that involve the Arab-Israeli conflicts.  These sanctions are intended to minimize battleground editing, including about areas that are real battlegrounds.  If discussion on the talk page is inconclusive, read the dispute resolution policy and follow a dispute resolution procedure.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! <span style="font-size:smaller;:'arial bold',;border:1px solid Black;"> Kamel Tebaast  22:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Citing foreign language wikipedia articles
Hi. I'm drafting an article about mathematician Andrea Razmadze, and the only information I can find anywhere about his death is uncited material from his Georgian wikipedia article. Is there a way to show this is where I found the info? Does this even count as valid?

Also: I created the article off the MacTutor list, where his name is spelled "Andrei", but this is apparently an unusual variation; none of the other sources I found spelled it that way, including his own mathematical institute! Is there a way to change the URL name client-side? Do I even need to worry about this? Oceanchaos (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Foreign language sources are quite acceptable if there are not satisfactory English ones; but they need to be reliable, and Wikipedia (in any language including English) is not a reliable source, because anybody may edit it. If the only place you can find that mentions his death is kawiki, then it should not be in the article at all. As for the page title: you simply retitle a page by moving it. It doesn't matter too much while it is in user space - eventually, if it is accepted, it should get moved to Andrea Razmadze. (Ny the way, you can wikilink to its current place by using double square brackets thus:  appears as User:Oceanchaos/Andrei Razmadze). --ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . That makes sense, I will remove the details about his death. Perhaps an editor who speaks Georgian can find more information. I moved the article: my concern is now that the MacTutor list of pending articles no longer points to my article (points to Andrei R, not Andrea R), and I don't know how to prune it off. Can you pass this on to the relevant editor? Oceanchaos (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Is this a possible reference for his death?  Theroadislong (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . That is the MacTutor page that suggested the topic in the first place. I didn't cite it directly because it seemed to be derived almost completely from one reference, and I try to summarize source material whenever possible. However, I have added it as an 'external link'. While the MacTutor article mentions that another (French) mathematician wrote a condolence letter, it doesn't say where or how Razmadze died, or where he was buried, which seem like much more important bits of information to me. Oceanchaos (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Oceanchaos. I have found and cited a source for his dates of birth and death. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thanks, but I already had multiple sources for the *dates* of his birth and death. The pieces of information I don't have (except in the ka.wiki) are (1) the location of his death, (2) the cause of his death, and (3) the location of his burial.
 * @Oceanchaos: This source's statement that he "passed away unexpectedly" indicates the cause may be unknown, which is quite common (not that I'm implying you should speculate in the article, but you could find a way to quote that).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Senior editors assigned to each article?
Hello Cullen and thank you for your excellent answer of clarification about senior editors and articles about deceased persons, it was very helpful indeed. Please one very important question, is there always a main senior editor in charge of each article, that is ie. ticking off or editing new additions to articles? It seems like there might be a senior editor of a type assigned to an article to edit everything that is being added? Or are the only people regularly editing any particular article those that have knowledge in or are genuinely interested in the article? Thank you for your answer in advance.GrassRoots (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Articles don't have editors assigned to them, and there is no official "senior editor" status (although of course some editors are more experienced than others, and some are administrators). If you take a look at Special:Statistics, you'll see we currently have 5,198,198 articles and 112,383 editors active in the past month, so it just wouldn't be practical. Editors do make use of their watchlists to monitor articles they are interested in or have edited in the past, however, and there are other ways of detecting vandalism. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome back to the Teahouse, . Adding to the correct information that Cordless Larry provided above, I want to emphasize that Wikipedia content is created without any hierarchy, assignments, bosses or official power imbalances among editors. Each individual editor decides on their own which articles to write, expand, improve or watch. The vast majority of productive experienced editors are volunteers working on what interests them and gratifies them personally. No one is ever the "main senior editor" of an article except in the sense that they may have contributed more than others, and no one is ever "in charge" of any article. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)