Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 544

Adding a photo to an article
Hi. I am creating an article for a client (I am a publicist) and I want to upload his headshot. He sent me the photo himself and I am unsure as to what information to add for source, author and license. Thanks! RabbiReport (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, please familiarize yourself with our mandatory policy on paid editing disclosure and also our conflict of interest policy. You should submit a draft article through the Articles for Creation process. As for the photo, you cannot just upload it since you are not the copyright holder. The copright holder, usually the photograper, must release the photo themself, in writing, under an acceptable Creative Commons license. The easiest way is for the copyright holder to set up an account at Wikimedia Commons, and then use their upload wizard, answering all of the questions truthfully and accurately. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello RabbiReport, welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia takes copyrights very seriously, and we want to be certain that we have permission to use the images we include in our articles. One of Wikipedia's five fundamental principles is that it is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute. You are more than welcome to donate your images for Wikipedia to use, but before proceeding, it is important to understand that we ask for images that are licensed under a free content license. These licenses release some, but not all, of the copyright to an image, allowing anyone – not just Wikipedia – to use and transform the image in any medium or format, both commercially and non-commercially, usually as long as the author or copyright holder is attributed (i.e. given credit).


 * Please talk with the copyright holder of the image (normally, it's the person who produced the image) and have them agree to release the image under a free license – I recommend one of the Creative Commons licenses, as they are the most common. The author of the image is the person or entity who took the photograph. For the source, write where you obtained the image – in this case, from the subject of the photo. Finally, if the image has been previously published elsewhere (e.g. on a website other than Wikipedia), we will need additional evidence of permission to use the work: this is most easily satisfied by directly stating on the original website, "This image is available under the following license [...]", but you may also opt to try our Interactive Release Generator, which is a form that will verify through email with us that an image is available under a free license. If you need any clarification or help with the process, feel free to ask here at the Teahouse again. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Additionally, on your user talk page, I have linked some important information about managing a potential conflict of interest on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a policy of writing articles from a neutral point of view, and since you have a business relationship with your client, you may find it difficult to maintain a neutral point of view. For example, you might unconsciously embellish your client or omit relevant encyclopedic information that might be negative. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask at this Teahouse. Mz7 (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your responses!

@Cullen: I have added the conflict of interest disclaimer to the talk page for the draft article. Are you able to take a look at it and see if I did it correctly? This is a pretty basic page for a rather non-controvercial subject, but I've been a journalist for 20 years and am extremely sensitive to any perceived conflict of interest. I am happy to be as up-front about my involvement as possible.

@Mz7: Thank you! I have emailed my client's daughter with instructions on how to give the appropriate permissions via Wikimedia Commons.

Please let me know if you see any other problems or errors in my post. It's a work in progress and I wouldn't dream of submitting it for approval until all rules and best practices have been covered! Thanks! RabbiReport (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . I noticed a few important issues with your draft. The most important issue is the notability of the subject. Generally, if a subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then that subject is presumed notable for a standalone Wikipedia article. The sources you provide should be secondary sources, such as news/magazine articles or a review that analyzes Nelson's work or life. Sources like the Treehouse Masters official website and Nelson Treehouse and Supply do not contribute to showing notability because they are affiliated with the subject matter. Focus on adding sources like the Outside Magazine article. The San Fransisco News source is the kind of source that we are looking for, but it should provide in-depth discussion on Nelson himself in order to show notability. I would focus most of your efforts on finding quality sources before anything else. I am especially worried about this part because Treehouse Masters – Nelson's most obvious claim to notability since he's the host of it – doesn't seem to have a standalone article. If the show isn't notable, I'm not sure if the host is either too.
 * Another issue is the tone of the article. Wikipedia articles should be written in a formal, disinterested tone. Use the surname "Nelson" to refer to the subject, rather than "Pete". Avoid writing a narrative and stick closer to the facts. Sentences like "Now, he can’t imagine living anywhere else." just don't feel formal or disinterested. Finally, you should add additional citations within the body of the article so that the content can be verified. A guide I sometimes recommend is the amnesia test:
 * Forget everything that you may already know about the subject you want to write about—act as if you know nothing.
 * Go online and do research on the subject, focusing more closely on secondary sources and less on sources affiliated with the subject; be sure to check the reliability of the sources
 * From your research, and your research only, write an article
 * If you find that there is little published information available on which to write, that's an indication that the subject may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 * Feel free to follow up here if you have any further questions. Best, Mz7 (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @Mz7:

Thanks! Yes, some of that was cut/pasted from his site and interviews he did for us. I am going to absolutely clean it up before submitting it. As for the show not having a page, it's a super successful show (and there are loads more citations to add) but Discovery Networks doesn't, as a rule, make their own Wikipedia pages for their shows. Only about 1/2 of the shows on Animal Planet have pages. They're leaving it up to me, but are being very slow in providing the info I need (number of episodes, ratings info, etc.).

Over the next day or two I will put considerable more effort into this and if you're up for another looksee, will let you know when I do.

Thanks so much for your help! RabbiReport (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . You say "Descovery Networks doesn't, as a rule, make their own Wikipedia pages for their shows". This statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Ideally, nobody in the entire world makes a Wikipedia page for themselves or their concerns. Nobody. Wikipedia articles should be written by disinterested people, working entirely from reliable independent published sources, and people unconnected with the subject make the decision whether a subject is notable enough for an article and what material is suitable for the article. Consequently, editors are discouraged from working on articles where they have a conflict of interest; and many editors regard paid editors like yourself with suspicion. If the show is notable in Wikipedia's special sense (which doesn't mean popular, or famous, or important, or influential, or significant: it just means that several people unconnected with it have seen fit to publish in-depth writing about it) then there can be a Wikipedia article, and will be if somebody decided to write it. If such writing does not exist, then there cannot be an article about it: what the Network wishes or doesn't wish is immaterial. --ColinFine (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, . You are absolutely right and I stand chastised. It's hard serving two masters and while I 100% understand and agree with Wikipedia's mission, guidelines and principals, I also work for a client who may not understand said rules and rather than try to convince them that this is generally not how Wikipedia works, I try to work within the guidelines and I hope I have done so. I posted the disclaimer on the talk page of my draft entry, which I understand is the correct place. Happy to post elsewhere, if need be. I am also going to clean up the entry and post more reputable 3rd party sources, later today. Re: the show, understood and thanks for keeping me on my toes!

Also, for the record, I am not being paid specifically to write this article. It's simply part of my duties as a publicist. I don't know if that matters or if it's splitting hairs, but I am not a professional Wikipedia article writer (I assume there are people like that).RabbiReport (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Trouble with Adding Photograph Due to 'Permission Error'
Hi there,

I'm a new Wikipedia user and I was wondering if somebody could assist me as I am having trouble adding a photograph on a Wikipedia page. The photograph I was hoping to add to a particular page was of the Italian Ambassador's residence which I sourced from Wikimedia Commons. However, when I went to view it after saving, a link appeared which informed me there was a 'permission error' for some reason.

The URL for the article in question is as follows; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucan,_Dublin

If somebody could inform me what my error is I would greatly appreciate it. PucaPower (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC) PucaPower - please do not post the same question on different help pages - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your error was adding the complete URL to the image   when the correct way would have been to include only the file name with the File: prefix:  . See Picture tutorial. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This had already been explained at Help desk at 17.06 - before they even posted it here.

Ok sorry about that Arjayay, I only realised last minute that new users questions are supposed to be directed to Teahouse, I didn't think you would reply to me on the other page so I asked again on this. Anyway, thanks for the help all the same and I'll know for the future. :)

Oh I see, thank you for your help :). I intend to add more so I hope it will work next time. Another user has told me they fixed it but did not understand my permission error message either because although I am not an admin, I am a registered user. I think this message was sent to me from Wikimedia Commons. It should not interfere with my future edits should it? PucaPower (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , honest mistakes should never interfere with what you do in the future. The "permission error" is nothing to do with your personal permissions: by using the wrong syntax (a URL in the double brackets used for wikilinks instead of in the single brackets used for external links) you had given the software a nonsense to cope with, and "permission error" was the best it could do. --ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ColinFine thank you, somebody mentioned to me I might have problems with the bots so that could very well be it. Thanks a mil, the pic looks smashing now. PucaPower (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC) ColinFine thank you

Becoming A Wikipedia Administrator
I Have another Account That Has A Bit More Seniority, Yet I'm Not An Administrator. I'm Interested In Becoming An Administrator and Continuing To Give Back To The Wiki Community! Can Anyone Help Me With This? Hacker.Collett (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Check out WP:RFA for the process. RudolfRed (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, read the guideline on multiple accounts. Why do you have another account that has more seniority?  Why are you not making this request from it?  Have you declared the connection between the accounts (unless you have a special exception, as listed, for the use of multiple accounts without declaring them.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Because his other account is blocked. As is this one now. &#8209; Iridescent 17:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I need writers!!!
Hi, my name is Norbert Stachel. I'm a veteran saxophonist and woodwind player, composer, and arranger. I'm an established professional musician that has worked with many extremely famous artists during my career as what is referred to as a "sideman" in the music business. Some names to mention are Boz Scaggs, Roger Waters, Tower Of Power, Tito Puente, Celia Cruz, Dream Theater, Prince, Freddie Hubbard, Aerosmith, Zigaboo Modeliste, Sheila E, Roy Hargrove, Andrew Hill, Don Cherry, and many many more. I'm looking for writers to write articles about me (Norbert Stachel), my flutist wife Karen Stachel, and our music group LehCats.

Some links to verify what I'm talking about:

http://norbertstachel.com http://www.allmusic.com/artist/norbert-stachel-mn0001311378/credits http://lehcats.com/home https://twitter.com/nstachel https://https://www.facebook.com/LehCatsMusic/ https://https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4yTUAd7OiWmlqskZmzJO-49GjTcmX_9d

I can't deal with the aggravation of trying to figure out how to write articles myself, and it goes against Wikipedia guidelines anyway. Please Help Me!!! LehCats (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . I have two suggestions for you to try:
 * You can request assistance at Wikipedia:Request article and see if someone there is willing to write an article about you or your wife; or
 * You can post something at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians and ask the same thing.
 * Before you do either, however, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:Notability (people) and see if either you or your wife satisfy those guidelines. If you able to show that the two of you have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then there is a good chance that somebody will write an article about you or your wife. If you are unable to satisfy those two guidelines, then there is a pretty good chance of no article ever being written. I also suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences for reference. Having a Wikipedia article written about you might seem like only a positive thing, but there can be a downside to it as well. Good luck to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I echo that. In a nutshell, please read Golden rule and WP:MUSICBIO. You, your wife, or your band must meet the criteria described in those two documents. Who you have worked with doesn't really matter because notability is not inherited. You may be well known in musicians' circles, but having a Wikipedia article requires that there exist examples of significant coverage about you in independent sources (that is, sources not associated with you). ~Anachronist (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your draft at this point is Draft:Norbert Stachel. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To add to what the previous editors have said, first, your Biography section consists of a long list of blue links, in other words, which looks like you are claiming notability by association with other notable artists. Merely playing with notable players doesn't make you notable.  Second, as I said in my decline, none of the References that you have given is independent and reliable.  Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube are not reliable sources because anyone can say anything on them.  Two of the web sites appear to be your own.  Allmusic does not establish notability because it is a "universal source" that lists everybody.  Those are my comments for now.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Re-Submission Of Article and How Long It Takes for Approval
Happy Monday! I have a question in regards to the length of time one has to wait after re-submitting an article due to the lack of containing appropriate sources and references. I re-sent the article back after editing it on Friday and was curious when I should be hearing back if it was approved or not. If anyone has any information on the wait time, that would be great! Thanks! Jody1121 (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. Assuming that you're talking about User:Jody1121/sandbox, you didn't resubmit after editing your draft.  There is a blue "Resubmit" button in the box at the top of the page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As for how long you'll have to wait, there are currently over 900 drafts awaiting review. You can see how long they've been waiting, at Category:AfC pending submissions by age.  --David Biddulph (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Looking at User:Jody1121/sandbox, I would suggest taking a look at Tutorial/Formatting, and try to fix some of the formatting problems with the article. Also, you can always click "edit" on other articles and try to follow the same type of formatting they do. This list of high quality articles by topic might be a good place to start.


 * I would also recommend:


 * Help:Referencing for beginners, since portions of the draft are currently unreferenced,
 * Neutral point of view, since the draft seems to rely on promotional language that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and
 * Copying text from other sources, since portions of the draft appear to be copied verbatim from online sources


 * Hopefully this helps. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You have loaded the current draft with a very large number of references to Hegna's books. Those are not independent.  In order to establish notability, you need sources that are independent of Hegna and are reliable.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all that replied. I re-submitted the article on Friday with (high!) hopes that I would have an answer today. Clearly, the line is long. As for referencing, I am a little stuck on what's reliable, notable sourcing. I have gone through the numerous articles, links, and sub-links discussing referencing and felt that my re-submission was within the means of the site. Any advice for a first-time Wiki contributor who's goal is to get her client readership and share his message would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!! Jody1121 (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Apparently you didn't read what I said. You did NOT resubmit your draft.  --David Biddulph (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Er, what was that, ? "To get her client readership and share his message"? That's not what Wikipedia is for. If that's what you want to do, please quickly choose some other website to do it on. Wikipedia does not allow promotion of any kind, and it looks as if your purpose here may be to promote. Please note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. You are talking about a "client" Have you made an appropriate disclosure? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * David, I DID re-submit my draft, on Friday. It is in my history that it was re-submitted after I updated the document with proper references and sourcing.

Listen I am new to Wikipedia. My purpose was not to promote, but to create a bio page for a client with a strong message and background. Highlight the journey of his life, where he started and where he is now, like many other pages that are published on Wikipedia featuring industry leaders, speakers, etc. I will re-review the Terms of Use and move forward with an appropriate disclosure justlettersandnumbers. Thank you Jody1121 (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If (with your vast experience of Wikipedia) you are firmly convinced that you did resubmit your draft despite being repeatedly told that you didn't, then I guess that you won't be asking for advice from experienced users in future. David Biddulph (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Page deleted incorrectly!
Good Morning. I have had a message to say that i have written an autobiography and so therefore my page has been deleted. This is not the case, I have written a page about Charles and Patricia Lester, however I used their names as a username so that I would remember the login!

I would be very grateful if you could assist me to change my username so that I can publish this page.

I am new to Wikipedia so did not understand your rules. Sorry. Vikki Cartledge.CharlesPatriciaLester (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Draft:Charles and Patricia Lester has not been deleted (at least not yet), but it is nominated for deletion as unambiguously promotional. It is also a copyright violation from http://www.charles-patricia-lester.co.uk/charles-patricia-lester-biography/ . —teb728 t c 09:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As for your username, I would think that "Vikki Cartledge" would be an easy username for you to remember. In any case, see Changing username for how to change it. Writing an autobiography is discouraged but not forbidden. Using a username that impersonates someone else in not allowed. —teb728 t c 10:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above but I'll add a comment. While Vikki Cartledge would be an easy username for you to remember, it is understandable and acceptable to use something other than your real name. You should change your username but feel free to change it to a pseudonym.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems that a number of new editors decide to create a username that is that of "the" article whose creation they see as their Wikipedia career. We always hope that editors will not limit their concentration to creating one article.  Creating an article, complete with references, is the hardest task in Wikipedia, and is easily discouraging for new editors, who would often do better to help us with the five million articles that we already have rather than one article that we don't have.  However, there is a rule against using a user name that is that of a real person unless you are that person.  (I think that, among other things, new editors don't always understand the difference between user names and article titles.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Vikki has a new user name as of this morning, so that problem is solved. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Moisture Removal Efficiency
I reviewed Draft:Moisture Removal Efficiency. I didn’t accept it or decline it, but left comments, because the topic does appear to be notable, but the draft had formatting problems. User:Lew.Harriman then posted: Thank you very much for your kind corrections of my formatting errors. I'm entirely new to the WP ecosystem, and it's been quite a challenge to learn (and often to guess) the correct way to code formatting, and to express appreciation for all your help. I'm hoping that this is the correct venue and technique (ie: posting a "new section" on your talk page). If not, I apologize and would appreciate corrective guidance about the most acceptable, polite and respectful means and methods of communicating with editors. Regarding specific guidance, I have another question which is no doubt very basic, but about which I remain befuddled. I read the edits you suggested, and of course they are all just fine and much appreciated. I then "saved changes". My assumption is that by "saving changes", I have accepted your edits and that the now-current version of the proposed article awaiting review has been changed accordingly. Is that assumption correct?.. or did I need to go back to my draft submission, and make each of the changes you suggested piece-by piece? First, he did succeed in saving changes. That assumption was correct. He didn’t succeed with respect to the See Also links, which I have fixed. Second, a reviewer’s talk page is a proper place to ask questions about a draft article. I am taking the discussion here so that other experienced editors can comment, and other inexperienced editors can learn. Third, do other experienced editors have comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, Robert.

My current question for anybody who might know) is about fixing the location of the references. I entered the text of the references in the graphic editor as I added them to the basic text. I don't recall consciously placing the references in any location myself.

But somehow the text of the references has landed in the "Request review" section of the proposed entry. And darned if I can figure out how to remove them, since that section does not appear in the "source" window.

Should I just delete the references in the text and re-enter them again.. or would that foul up the entry even further? Lew.Harriman (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE. I appear to have solved it by removing the section header that asked for a review. No idea how I had managed to enter that header text, either. But in any case, after I removed it, the references were popped back into the reference section, where they belong. Clearly, there are many aspects of using the graphic editor that I'll need to learn and keep in mind. Lew.Harriman (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey Lew.Harriman. You can tell the markup where to display your references by including in your references section. If there is no reflist, then they will automatically display at the bottom, so including the reflist is necessary if you, for example, have other sections that fall below your references section, like external links. I have no idea how you do this in graphic editor, because I've never used it, but this is how you do it in the old school editor.  Timothy Joseph Wood  19:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Timothy. That's very helpful. I've made that correction.Lew.Harriman (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

My edit on the page John of God (medium)?
Hi, I edited a few sections on the page of john of god. First of all I removed the section on the accusations of sexually assaulting members of his staff. The Wiki pagelines clearly say that tabloid media is not appropriate. With the same reasoning I moved the ABC and the Montreal Gazette articles. The montreal Gazette article was moved under criticism. I also edited the prices: these are not true. I am currently living in Abadiania, and the price for a Crystal bed session is 20R$ little less then 6 dollars. The price for a 1,5 bottle of water is 3R$, less then a dollar. Then afterwards the article is writing about all the personal posessions of joao de deus. I think that is writing from a negative persective and trying to frame him as a fraud. His personal posessions are not relevant for this article I find. The pope, and the president are both very rich... but is that mentioned in their articles? Then next to that what isn't mentioned in the english wiki, but can be found on the Portuguese wiki is that De Feria runs 3 charities in Abadiania. He has two soup kitchens, one in the casa where people can eat on soup and bread and water for free. One isn't obliged to buy water! then another one in the village where people can get a full meal, plus coffee+ dessert. And he has a bath house where people can shower for free. Yes, indeed he is prescribing passiflora, for 50RS (14.50 dollar) for a large bottle or a small bottle for 10RS. (2.7 dollar). If people cannot pay, they get the medicine for free. People who do not have money to stay in a hotel, can camp for free on the terrain next door. If you guys want I can send pictures of the prices of these things to upload as proof. So I deleted the part of the prices, because they where simply not correct.

Ok, now the personal part of the story. My husband had lymes disease and was very very ill for 11 years. he passed over twice, but fought and came back. Since we moved to abadiania, he is doing much much better, and is almost cured for 85%. My husband was a millionaire but lost almost all his money on legitemate treatments in the US. Here in Abadiania all treatments where free (ofcourse we paid for our own stay and food, but that was cheap). When I wanted to share his story in the UK lymes disease group, (because many people here actually got cured from lymes disease) my story was removed after a post with a copy paste from the current wikipedia page.

I respect that other people might have different opinions, and do not believe in this, but then leave the critics under the critics page. These critics are individuals or tabloid journalists who come for a juicy story, not people coming with an open mind, but just ready to slay and judge. Wikipedia has pride in being a neutral source, and wants to hear from people who have no interest in the topic. One if the main critics is a doctor, who of course has interest in the topic because he feels his profession is being jeopardised. Truth of the matter is that there are weekly, already since 1965 10.000 people come to visit this man. Some have miraculous curing, most improve drastically or get a clue on how to continue healing, and yes sometimes, very sometimes, people who where already very sick die. But people die in hospitals too, and people die in car accidents too.

So I truly believe, that accusations should either be removed (because its just tabloid journalism, nothing is proved) or please please moved to the bottom of the page to the criticism section.

Thank you, and I look forward to your answers. Mirjam Luijten-Kao Maerlander (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, there is no blanket prohibition about citing "tabloid" news sources. Each source needs to be evaluated independently for qualification as a reliable source, regardless of its format. If you suspect that a cited source in the article is not reliable, the place to discuss it is at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, or WP:RSN for short. If accusations, particularly with evidence, have received coverage, then they are fair game to include in the article, as long as their inclusion doesn't constitute undue weight and is representative of the proportion of what available sources say. Wikipedia, being a neutral source, must present an encyclopedic representation of information about a topic with the appropriate weight as covered in available sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has absolutely no interest in your anecdotes about your and your husband's experiences with this faith healer and purveyor of "psychic surgery" cures. None whatsoever. Our only purpose is to summarize what the highest quality reliable, independent sources have written about this person. No more and no less. The article is filled with external links in its body. Those should be converted to references and accurately summarized, or removed. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  08:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @cullen ok, point taken, my personal stories indeed don't matter. all I tried was to bring across a point that I fiend that the way how the lead of this story is written, really doesn't come from a neutral standpoint. These are accusations, nothing is proven. So I don't believe they belong in the lead section of this story. Maerlander (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This is what is cited above the biography section on wikipedia:

Notice about sources This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. See more information on sources.

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page.

18:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maerlander (talk • contribs)

''' We are not going to promote your business for you. Please stop it. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)'''

I need help with tables.
Hello editors, I am editing Eye of the Storm (2015 film) and i wanted to make a table of the awards people won in the movie. I can't make a table where one column is the height of three rows. Could you please help me with an example please? GrecoRomanNut (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello . You need to use the   statement:


 * The wiki markup for the above follows – in your case set the  to , this example uses   for simplicity:




 * I derived this example from Help:Table, although that page does not have a dedicated section on the topic. See also Advanced table formatting.  Hope this helps.  Best wishes.  RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey. Thank you, but I don't understand. If I post some links, could you maybe make it for me? If you don't want to that's okay. GrecoRomanNut (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello . I just happened to find your posting again by chance.  Next time add   to your reply and I will automatically get a notification by email.  By all means post a link here and I'll have a look at your markup problem.  But remember to ping me.  Best wishes.  RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

deleting or redirecting
Hi all. I have, with help from you out there, been able to create a page that is now live on the Wikipedia mainspace. However, when I began working on the page I accidentally created an "artifact" page (for lack of better word) that I would like to make disappear. What is the easiest way to achieve this? The page to which I'm referring is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_cappos thank you, and I will pay it forward by playing my guitar in the subway...less   Kgberg (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Kgberg, looks like the capitalization mistake page was deleted in September. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Timothyjosephwood, thanks. someone emailed me that it comes up still when they search. weird. Wonder if I can add a redirect to it just to make it "invisible"Kgberg (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Kgberg, If they are referring to Google results...well...Google works in mysterious ways, and this wouldn't be the first time they continued to link to an old version, even a blatantly vandalized version of an article. Unfortunately, we have no control over what Google does. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Timothyjosephwood, would adding a redirect solve it? (redirect to correct wiki page)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.72 (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Kgberg, Still not entirely sure what the issue is. A Google search seems to bring up the correct article. A Wikipedia search also automatically redirects to the correct article. Maybe your friend is using something like Bing, in which case, you should probably stop being their friend. Timothy Joseph Wood  21:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Timothyjosephwood I think he uses Tor, which could mean anything... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.76 (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

nomination for deletion?
I created a page called Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. Middle School. On the talk page, two people felt it did not meet notability. Another person suggested we turn it to AfD. I agreed. And that is what I thought would happen.

Yet, one of the people who felt it did not meet notability, instead of nominating it for deletion, simply blanked the page and redirected the LAUSD page, effectively ending the discussion.

Question 1: Was he supposed to do that?

I undid that and then nominated the page for deletion myself to get some idea of what the problem is as my page looks identical to other school pages such as Le Conte Middle School.

Question 2:  As this is all new to me...please give me some guidance...am I doing this right...am I wrong in this case. HedgeHogPower (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion because they claim that my article is about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.)
Hello, i created a page called "Weddings in mali", however, it was not approved because apparently it is considered as an article that talks about t an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.). However, it is not because this article is within the scope of WikiProject Mali, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Malian related topics, and the culture. therefore i wanted to know how i could get it posted and approved, and posted as soon as possible HawaG (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. User  suggested it should be deleted as an article about an organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. I disagreed with the applicability of this deletion reason and have removed the deletion notice. You can continue to improve Weddings in Mali. First and foremost, you should find more reliable sources that discuss weddings in Mali and summarize what they say. This is preferable to writing what you may know from personal experience, but that is not documented anywhere in reliable sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sure if it was significant, thanks for disagreeing and further clarifying. Lollerwaffle (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

thank you so much for your help what do you mean by finding more reliable sources? do you mean that i should find more sources to put into the entry? Also, I wanted to know whether you could help with guiding me on how to delete the multiple articles that I submitted, and only have one copy available? HawaG (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, . For instance, you write that celebration with traditional song and dance usually takes place at the front of the couple's house at night and give France24 as the source for this information. This is good sourcing. But most of the article doesn't do this. The entire sections on henna ceremony, religious marriage, civil marriage, attire and jewelry do not say where the information comes from. Ideally, you should cite a source for everything you say.


 * I've marked the Draft and the sandbox pages for deletion for you since they are no longer needed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

How can I upload a headshot of a person?
Hi! I'm working for Heather Parry, who is a film and television producer. I want to add a professional headshot for her in the page, but I can't figure out how to upload a photo. I tried to say the image was mine, because we have all the licenses for it, but then it was taken down. Then I tried to upload it to the commons, but that didn't work either, it was taken down.

Is there a way I can upload a picture of someone, the image itself is mine and the person approves. Thanks! Sufi2016 (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If by "working for" you mean you are receiving paid compensation of any kind from anyone to edit Wikipedia, you first need to read and comply with Paid-contribution disclosure. This is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Service. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This might not be much help, but when you go in to edit mode (I use visual mode) there is a bar along the top of the article that is labeled "Insert". From that you can insert media files into a page.
 * I haven't tried it, but I think that is what you need.
 * Don Keebals (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , it looks like the images were deleted because there was no evidence that the copyright holder gave permission for them to be licensed for use on Wikipedia. See Donating copyrighted materials and OTRS for more information. clpo13(talk) 00:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit reference
I found a citation in Thomas Sowell's page (citation 18) that leads to a 404 page and I wanted to update it with a good link. How do I do that?

Don Keebals (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . I think the information you are looking for can be found at WP:PLRT and WP:DEADREF. To find exactly where the citation is in the article, click on the backlink after the reference's number in "References" section and it should take to the exact location of the citation. Make a mental note of that location, and then click on the edit button at the top of the article or top of the relevant section of the article. Add the correct link and then click "Show preview" to check if you done it correctly. If you did, click "Save changes" and everything should be fine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

How to get sufficient references for new topics
I submitted an article on a subject ("Jobs as Code") that is new in the DevOps "industry" and so there are precious few references available. How do I proceed and what are considered acceptable references?

JoeGFromBMC. (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse If Jobs as Code has not received significant coverage from reliable sources that are totally independent of Jobs as Code, the only thing to do is wait and hope such coverage develops. Not all subjects are notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 08:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. The draft in question is Draft:Jobs As Code, which currently contains zero references. An unreferenced article will not be accepted on Wikipedia. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. How do you (or anyone else) know that what you have written is accurate? References to reliable sources are the equivalent of solid gold when writing a Wikipedia article. Acceptable references are published sources with professional editorial control and a well-established reputation for accuracy, fact checking and correcting errors. An example of an excellent reliable source is a book written by a widely recognized academic expert, published by an Ivy League university publisher. At the other end of the spectrum, supermarket tabloids are unreliable sources. There is a continuum from one extreme to the other, but we have a strong preference for higher quality sources. The bottom line is that a Wikipedia article summarizes reliable sources, and unreferenced content is not acceptable and should be removed unless acceptable references can be added promptly. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  08:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Confusion about "Weddings in Mali" article tone or style not reflecting the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia.
Hello I do not understand why you think that  the tone my article does not reflect an encyclopedic tone? however, I think the tone is appropriate because it aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Malian related topics, and the culture, which is somewhat informativeHawaG (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , there is a lot of beautiful "this" and beautiful "that" on the page, which isn't the proper tone to set in an encyclopedia article. What is beautiful to one person may be gaudy or inappropriate to another. It's not anything super-serious, just a bit of FLOWERY language to clean up. I would have done it myself but had more pressing (IRL) matters to attend to. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I have made the necessary edits and cleaned up the Flowery language, and if you read very carefully you would notice that tone of my article does reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. Also that i only used the word BEAUTIFUL twice. Also that the multiple articles are no longer there, and that i have included more citations. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HawaG (talk • contribs) 09:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Asking someone to take a photograph and upload it to the commons
I would like to add an image of a particular statue (in Italy) to a wikipedia page, but there is nothing on the commons. Since I am geographically too far away from the statue to take a picture myself, is there a place to ask someone in the wikipedia community who's closer to do this then upload it for use?

Thanks for the help! TimeForLunch (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * TimeForLunch: May be good to start at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy, or maybe a more specific group like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rome for example, depending on where the statue is. I've made similar requests before on projects related to US cities with good results. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Timothy Joseph Wood, Ok I'll check out those links. Thanks!TimeForLunch (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The (slightly cumbersome} method for making such requests is explained at Requested pictures. This will put your request into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Italy, or a subcategory of that main Category, but please do not try to add your request directly to that page. As for how successful such requests are - I am afraid I do not know - Arjayay (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi TimeForLunch


 * Arjayay Thanks for the info. I'll take a look at the Requested pictures page. TimeForLunch (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Could I recover this unsaved article?
Hello:) I created an article the same day I created a user profile, but when I went to add images, the wiki told me that I cannot until I am registered. I wasn't sure what this meant, but it also said that I should be auto registered in four days. I left the tab open, but I did switch internet connections multiple times before checking on the tab again. It told me I wasn't logged in, so I logged in by opening a different tab to wikipedia. I then refreshed the page that had the article that I had finished writing, but had not added the pictures or saved. When I refreshed everything was deleted. Is there any way for me to recover the article, or is it gone for good because it wasn't saved as a draft, or if it was I don't know how to find it. (as i don't have a user page or drop down box for my username. I am assuming that this is because I am not "registered yet") Any help would be appreciated!Charlottebrezxczky (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse!
 * Since it was never saved, the article you were working on is now lost and you'll have to start over. Sorry, that's too bad. Your user page never got saved, either.
 * Normally, anonymous or unregistered users can edit on Wikipedia (with the exception of certain protected content, but the vast majority of content is not protected). Start with some simple edits to get some experience with Wikipedia before trying to create an article – creating an article that is acceptable by Wikipedia standards is pretty difficult for new users. Having their work deleted is a frequent disappointing result for new editors. Don't be discouraged, keep at it, read the instructions and advice (WP:Your first article), try the tutorial (WP:TWA), and thank you for your efforts.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  04:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, this helped a lot. I re-wrote the article and plan to wait until my account is auto confirmed. I made sure to save it this time!Charlottebrezxczky (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, I notice that your account has only the two edits you made here at the Teahouse. If you wait until you are autoconfirmed before you save the article with your account, you may never be autoconfirmed, for one of the requirements to be autoconfirmed is ten edits. —teb728 t c 06:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * One other bit of advice, : don't be in a hurry to add pictures. I say this for two reasons. One is that images are another thing that is a bit hard in Wikipedia, because of the firm position Wikipedia takes on copyright. The other is that pictures are in a way "the icing on the cake": the extra bit you can add to make a fairly good article into a good one. Inexperienced editors often spend time worrying about pictures which would be better spent in getting the quality of articles up - especially by citing references. --ColinFine (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

How to explain reverts
I must be missing something obvious ... any pointers or hints would be appreciated. Looking at the History of an article, I used the Revert option to revert a string of obviously counter-productive changes by an IP editor. I wanted to leave an edit summary explaining this, per WP:REVEXP, but it never gave me the opportunity: as soon as I clicked on "Revert" the deed was done, and it took me to the empty User Talk page for that IP editor. So how should I provide an edit summary in cases like this? Gronk Oz (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Which Twinkle tool are you using? I don't see one labeled "revert". There are three "rollback" buttons which I don't use, but I would expect (from the name) to generate an automatic edit summary. I use "restore this version" which pops up a box for a reason. My favorite way to revert is the ordinary "undo" which uses an ordinary edit window with an edit summary line. —teb728 t c 07:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * as you have discovered the standard rollback function does not allow for the addition of any edit summary. Therefore if the reason isn't obvious you should explain via either the article or more likely the user talk page. If you activate TWINKLE the rollback options available here all give the chance to add an edit summary. Nthep (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, and .  I realize now that I should have provided some more details.  I have Twinkle, but that's not what I was using: it does not offer any option to rollback that I can see.  nstead, from the article History page I selected the IP user's last couple of changes and used "Compare selected versions". From there, just above the Diffs, on the right hand side are the options "[rollback (AGF)] || [rollback] || [rollback (VANDAL)]".  It does open the User Talk page, but in this case that's no help because it was an IP with a never-used Talk page.  I did put reasons on the article's Talk page.  I am interested in the Twinkle rollback options the give the chance to add an edit summary: how do I access these?.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As a further complication, I don't think I am supposed to have Rollback rights. I am not on the list of Special:ListUsers/rollbacker rollbackers linked from WP:ROLLBACK, and my User Right do not show any Rollback rights.  Colour me confused.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Twinkle's "rollback" is not the real and faster rollback feature in MediaWiki itself. Twinkle opens the user page so you can post a notification to the user, e.g. a standard warning. It's not to read any messages before reverting. Twinkle's "restore this version" above the old version in a diff allows you to enter an edit summary. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The "[rollback (AGF)] || [rollback] || [rollback (VANDAL)]" options are from Twinkle. They provide rollback functionality to those who do not have rollback privilege. Do I understand correctly that you were using one of those? If so that would explain why you were not offered the opportunity for an edit summary. For normal rollback is a one-click revert with a canned edit summary. —teb728 t c 11:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all - hit the nail on the head: these actually are Twinkle options, even though they don't use the Twinkle drop-down menu. I found the details at Twinkle/doc. There is no ability to leave an edit summary for some reason; perhaps I will suggest this to the Twinkle folks.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not bug in Twinkle but the intended function. If you want to leave an edit summary, use "restore this version" or "undo". —teb728 t c 11:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Use of a custom infobox within an article
Hello Teahousers. I am drafting an article at Draft:Open energy system models and wonder if it is appropriate to develop and use a custom infobox to summarize the key attributes of the models I am describing? I have a prototype template at User:RobbieIanMorrison/energy model and an example of its use at User:RobbieIanMorrison/sandbox/work in progress 7. I think I have seen this method on a page describing software licenses (but could not find it again). I also looked through the Wikipedia documentation but could not see anything confirming or banning this usage. Is this practice acceptable? If so, do you have any advice on its development and application? Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse!
 * Your article has been under development for quite a long time and submitted several times for review already. Also, the issue of custom infobox templates is a much more sophisticated question than we can normally deal with at the Teahouse, whose primary goal is helping new users. Asking your reviewers may be more effective than asking here.
 * While there is no pre-defined barrier to creating new templates, before you try to add them to the Template: namespace, you would be best advised to bring this question up at Template talk:Infobox, WP:TFD or possibly WP:PUMPTECH to see that your proposal will not be challenged or for someone to point out that what you desire already exists.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  05:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello . Many thanks for your reply and suggestions. / One unrelated point though: your   markup did not trigger an email notification.  Maybe there is a bug in the mw:Manual:Echo process?  Anyway, best wishes.  RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion continues here: Help desk/Archives/2016 November 16, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

how to find writer to write about me?
my name is Tyron Motif from long island. I'm a published author collection of poetry "lyrics to a woman in Harlem" on amazon and other markets. as a kid i was an at risk youth, spent most of my life in prison and addicted to drugs. today i am a motivational speaker working with at risk youth in my community, travel the country performing spoken word and telling my story. my 2nd book, a memoir of my struggles within the criminal justice system and within myself will be published in early 2017. as sources of reference you can go to amazon.com for my book, YouTube to my performing works, and long island Newsday paper 2000 2001 and 2007 for info on my past crimes. my rap sheet is avail. also for those who want itTyron Motif (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * my artist name is Tyron Motif... Tyron Ross is my real name if you wish to research meTyron Motif (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I'm guessing that you are already aware that autobiography is discouraged on Wikipedia, and that is why you are asking for somebody else to write about you. You could post a request at requested articles; but be advised there is quite a backlog there. But the first question is, are you notable (in Wikipedia's special sense?) This doesn't mean important, or famous, or popular, or significant, or influential: it simply means that there is enough material published about you by people unconnected with you to base an article on. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what anybody says about themselves, or what their friends, relatives, employers, colleagues, or agents, say about them. So if there is little or no published material about you by people who are not connected with you, then there is nothing that can go in an article. If there are such sources, then citing them in your request would make it more attractive for somebody to work on. --ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanx for the infoTyron Motif (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Paid editors
When a brand new editor account is created and a perfect article is created, it looks suspicious. Is there still a process to discover the truth, as in the Orangemoody investigation? Cotton2 (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey Cotton2. I believe the closest thing to what you're looking for is WP:SPI; however, SPI requires a bit of work on the front end. It's not a I think this account is a sock. It's a I think user A is a sock of user B. Hopefully that makes sense.


 * At the end of the day, while high quality editing from a new account may be suspicious, if it's not disruptive in it's own right then it might just be better to WP:AGF and carry on. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The other venue, that doesn't require attempting to link the author to an existing blocked or banned account, may be the conflict of interest noticeboard. When a brand new editor creates a perfect article, they really may be a brand new editor who has created a perfect article because they have really spent a lot of time on the sidelines learning from the experience of others.  Maybe thinking that every 'perfect' new editor is a sock is too much of an assumption of bad faith, and maybe a cynical experienced editor should only assume greed (also known as conflict of interest) and not malice (also known as socking).  (In traditional Christian thinking, greed is one of the seven sins, and socking doesn't figure.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject
Hello. How could I start a Wikiproject, please?

Jak474 (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's explained here: WikiProject. Before trying to start a new project, check to see if one already exists.  There are lots.  RudolfRed (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)