Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 571

Is it appropriate for one editor to put a command in a comment when no such consensus exists or indeed has ever been discussed on the talk page?
For example, here I had added Trumpeter Michael Sachs to the list of notable alumni for the National Repertory Orchestra. Michael is the long time principal trumpeter of the Cleveland Orchestra, a world famous trumpeter and educator, and I provided a reference that demonstrated his notability and connection to the NRO. Immediately following that, another editor here removed my entry, and put in a comment stating "Do NOT add names with now WP article". There was no consensus at this time, the other editor simply issued a command. Now according to WP:CSC, "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future" so (1) wasn't my entry perfectly reasonable, and (2) weren't the actions of the other editor outside of WP policy and borderline rude? --TheClarinetGuy talk 18:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , there exists a project wide consensus that in order to be listed in a notable person's list, that person's notability needs to be shown by the existence of their biography here on Wikipedia or sourcing that shows that beyond a reasonable doubt. See WP:NLIST. If the person you want to add meets article qualification guidelines (either the general guideline or the musician - specific guideline), then by all means write their biography then add them to the list. John from Idegon (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * that is very different from what told me here so now I am confused. And certainly it does not say that on WP:CSC which I quoted above. Why is there so much disagreement on this issue? Perhaps the policies surrounding this need to be clarified? Also, WP:Notability says that notability is established not by existence of a WP article but by the existence of acceptable sources. --TheClarinetGuy talk 19:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , you did not provide an independent source showing that this musician is "world famous" but rather a link to an orchestra website that lists all members of that orchestra. Because of your topic ban, you would be well-advised to avoid any type of editing that can be perceived as disruptive or misleading. Please desist. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Taking a closer look,, I see that you were editing a list that includes your own name, and you are topic banned from writing anything autobiographical. This is a really bad idea. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with my topic ban. I am simply trying to get an answer to my question. Why do you only respond with commands and veiled threats? Forget about the particulars, I am asking a general question, why are people giving totally different answers? Some are saying notability does not require a WP article, others are saying that it does, and WP:Notability clearly does not require a WP article. Here for example, wrote "there exists a project wide consensus that in order to be listed in a notable person's list, that person's notability needs to be shown by the existence of their biography here on Wikipedia" which is a direct contradiction of what  wrote when he said "Individual entries of such a list do not have to have a stand-alone article written about them". I'm just looking for an answer to the policy question. Please answer the question and stop the veiled threats. I thought this was the place for asking questions in a friendly environment? --TheClarinetGuy talk 19:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Doc James clarified the terms of your topic ban to include "your work or the people you work with" here Teahouse. That would seem to include the National Repertory Orchestra article. Once again you seem to be tendentiously editing very close to your ban. Meters (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Read it again. I said they had to have a bio or you had to prove it (probably could have said that better...you have to prove they would qualify to have a bio). You are violating your topic ban. So, to put things in simple terms, you cannot edit that list. You cannot edit any article that contains your name, you cannot edit any article about any organization you have ever had any association with. That's what a topic ban is. You have been given a topic ban in order for you to show you have the capacity to internalized our requirements. You show that by editing in areas you have no connection with (e.g. Bread) successfully. The alternative is you will simply be blocked. Sorry....that's as friendly and supportive as it can be phrased. John from Idegon (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * First, I am asking a theoretical question that has nothing to do with any specifics. I simply gave an example. Second, I have never worked at the National Repertory Orchestra, it is a training orchestra for young musicians and I did receive a fellowship to be in the orchestra for one summer in 1979. That hardly qualifies as some place that I work. What are you talking about? Could you please answer my question and stop with the attacks. I am not and have not violated my topic ban. Boy you admins seem to love attacking people who ask simple questions. Very frustrating indeed. I guess the Teahouse is not so friendly after all. --TheClarinetGuy talk 20:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * (EC) What is required is that notability of the person be established. The easiest way to demonstrate this is by creating a well referenced article. Short of that, you would need to list multiple references (i.e. show the notability, show that the person could have an article) with the name in the list. While this is not forbidden; the former method is much preferred. A single link to a listing of all members of an orchestra does not prove that person meets the notability requirements. Does this help clarify matters for you? Lady  of  Shalott  19:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , can't write articles about people he knows and works with because he has a conflict of interest. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't work with any of the people in the list. As I said, I was a student member of the orchestra in 1979 nearly 40 years ago. Why do you jump to ridiculous conclusions and then publish them here as fact with no basis whatsoever? Please desist. Furthermore, I am just asking a question here. Answers as opposed to your totally unfounded accusations, would be appreciated. --TheClarinetGuy talk 20:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the first actual response to one of my questions here. --TheClarinetGuy talk 20:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

So getting back to my question, "Is it appropriate for one editor to put a command in a comment when no such consensus exists or indeed has ever been discussed on the talk page?" And this is a general question, not in relation to any particular circumstance. --TheClarinetGuy talk 20:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. If you want a more detailed explanation see above. You'll generally get a clearer response if you don't phrase your questions in a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" format. John from Idegon (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , yes, you have violated your topic ban when you wrote in an earlier Teahouse thread: "Why? The topic ban is on Jonathan Cohler. I'm allowed to edit other things right? Boston Conservatory is not related to "Jonathan Cohler" other than I am a notable faculty member there." You are not allowed to edit, mention or even allude to or hint at Jonathan Cohler, except when appealing the topic ban. Please stop. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Cohler - If you have a specific question that isn't related to your topic-ban and isn't confrontational, you may ask it. However, you don't appear to be asking a question so much as trying to start a quarrel.  Please be aware that some of the editors here are administrators who can block you for disruptive editing, including for editing in violation of a topic-ban.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was deliberately not getting into the topic ban question because I have not looked at either the ban or the article in question., multiple editors who have looked at those think you are in violation. I would advise you to step away from this topic. Lady  of  Shalott  21:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

If my response to your previous Teahouse question was in error or created confusion than my apologies. However, you're quoting of me probably makes more sense if you quote the entire sentence and not just the first part. What I wrote (bold added by me) was Individual entries of such a list do not have to have a stand-alone article written about them,but that is typically the basic criterion for inclusion. You left out that last part (which I think is kind of important) by mistake when you posted this above. The part you quoted seems to imply that I am in disagreement with, which is not the case at all. At the end of my post I wrote There is no automatic inclusion for such names, and like other article content you may have to reach a consensus for it on the article's talk page, which means that the citeria for conclusion of a particular article is something that is often decided on the talk page of that article. Some articles such as University of Oxford could have an "Notable alumni" list 1000s of entries long if inclusion was pretty much automatic, but the consensus doesn't seem to be to allow that. That is why another article List of University of Oxford people where those not suitable for mentioning in the main article was created, but even that article would be huge and unwieldy if everyone was included, so its further broken up in to other stand-alone articles such as List of University of Oxford people in the law. This why I also wrote in my that it's OK to be bold and add a name to the list, but you should follow WP:BRD if you're reverted.

Fnally, I wrote at the very beginning of my post there was probably something about your editing at "Jonathan Cohler" which led to the community deciding to topic ban you from editing that article. So, if you try and use the same approach on another article, then your editing their will probably come under scrutiny as well. In general, editors who try to turn Wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEGROUND have very little success achieving their goal(s) even in cases where they may have a point. If other editors posting above are telling you that adding the names to a list i a violation of your topic band, then you need to either (1) request clarification of that from the admin who closed the relevant discusion which lead to the topic ban or (2) accept that and move on to editing something else. The Teahouse is supposed to be a friendly place to try and help others with editing questions. It's not really set up to work like WP:VP/P, WP:AN, or other community noticeboards which deal with more specific issues. Perhaps one of those would be a better place for you to address your concerns. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Template to tag inadequate ref?
I was looking at Alphabetic_principle, doing a bit of copyediting, and found several refs that were badly formatted— "cite" template without "ref" tags, so the ref was expanded in the text itself; URL and title with no tagging at all— and was able to fix them up at least somewhat. But this one, in § Role in beginning reading (second paragraph, second sentence), looks hopeless:

It wouldn't be so bad if there were a Reference or External link or such with some such name, but there's no such beast. I looked for a template to tag it with, but couldn't find any such; the best I could do was

before the "/ref" tag. Is there anything more suitable? Please ping me to answer. --Thnidu (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd have thought would be appropriate...but that just may reduce to the same thing as clarify. Any sort of remotely likely tag with a reason= parameter may be sufficient for the purpose: leave an in-line reason why some more editing work is required, get the page listed in a cleanup category, then drop it back into the vast lake to be picked up at some future date by you or someone else who has time and interest in fixing the problem more permanently.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk)  (contribs)  08:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That ref was introduced in this edit on 1 July 2010 by an IP editor who has never made any other edits. There is nothing in the context at the time to help with filling out the details. --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is an author of that name who wrote about the development of reading skills, so seems to be appropriate - for example, . --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The book in question is probably Chall, Jeanne S., Learning to Read: The Great Debate, McGraw-Hill,  1967. This book is widely cited in other books that discuss the alphabetic principle. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  09:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There are so many templates, including about refs, and though I searched I just could not find an appropriate one. Your suggestions are helpful.
 * Thank you both, comrades. With this I can put in a close-to-proper cite. --Thnidu (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The correct template would be Full citation needed – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, ! Respected more-experienced colleagues &, now I don't feel so bad about not finding it. ;-) And in searching the Web for more info about the book, I found -- whaddayaknow? -- Jeanne Chall, with a fuller citation for the 1996 edition! --Thnidu (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

How to locate and edit a new Catgegory for a recently uploaded picture.
I had to create a new "category" as requested by the wizard while uploading my first photo for my first draft article. Of course I made a typing error in describing the category and now I need to edit it. I have looked all over the HELP feature and I can find no way to locate or edit my new category! Please provide some clear instructions on how to first locate and then edit my category. All this is related to my article: Jean Jepson, Dancer, Teacher, Choreographer.

Teahouse has been very helpful in providing answers to my previous questions. It is not clear to me though if sending email replies would be helpful if I have a follow-up question to your initial reply. Please comment on this.CableHut (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . The Teahouse is for answering questions about editing Wikipedia, and I think you are talking about an image uploaded to our separate sister project Wikimedia Commons instead. No matter. I went over there and clicked the "edit" button on the image you uploaded, and changed "Category:Tap" to "Category: Tap dancer". That is a very easy thing to do. The categories are near the bottom of the image file.


 * As for email replies, that is very rarely necessary. Just return to the thread you started, click "edit", and add a follow-up comment to the bottom of the thread. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  08:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2017
Allee raza (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

allee raza


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know what you were trying to achieve with this edit, but a semi-protected edit request needs to be placed on the talk page of the article which you wish to be edited, and it needs to specify exactly what you want changed.  For example, you could say "Please replace "abc" by "def"", and you also ought to provide a reference to a published independent reliable source to support the change. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , please read David Biddulph's reply, just above this comment.
 * Allee raza won't have been notified of your reply, because you just typed their username without  or any of the templates, like   or   (a.k.a.  ), that would trigger a notification. --Thnidu (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look at who typed what here, you'll see that I didn't type Allee raza's username here, and you may wish to look at User talk:Allee raza to see the notification. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ooops! I apologize for my misunderstanding here. Clearly, that "semi-protected" process has twists that I don't understand. --Thnidu (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

how long
My article has be waiting for 3 weeks+ can someone get round to it soon please. 82.38.157.176 (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, 86. You are currently working on two draft articles. Neither are currently submitted for review. So in short no one is going to get around to either anytime. And I cannot help further because I have no way of knowing which one you want to submit for review. John from Idegon (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn't realise the one I want to be submit is Draft:List of highest-grossing animated films in Canada and the United States I thought I did send that off i do it now the other one my next project I will work on that after, i will try to send it off now if I have anymore  problems I will come back.82.38.157.176 (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Back it telling me both articles have been submit82.38.157.176 (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know why John from Idegon thought that Draft:List of highest-grossing animated films in Canada and the United States (which was indeed the draft you linked to in your original question) had not been re-submitted for review. It was submitted on 1 January.  There are 435 drafts awaiting review; about a quarter of them have been waiting more than 3 weeks.  --David Biddulph (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

page deleted
hello my friend have created page name called Audrey D'Silva but page was deleted, i wanna recover that page is it possible ?Mehakdhavan (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. Audrey D'Silva has been deleted twice, the first at the author's request and the second after WP:Articles for deletion/Audrey D'Silva.  The header of the latter page has a link to WP:Deletion review. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * hello then how can i recover that page, i have all proof and documents to prove 06:51, 31 January 2017‎ Mehakdhavan

How to replace an existing citation with a more accurate link
How to replace an existing citation with a more accurate link Niccasey (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Resolved! thanks anway

Niccasey (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

About Speedy deletion nomination
Hello,

Please tell me, is creating an informative page of any shop or firm on wikipedia, according to the terms and policies of wikipediaAbhishek.moonat (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Abhishek.moonat. It is not. An encyclopedia is a compendium of articles on topics of knowledge, already substantively written about by people out in the world and is never the place to first discuss topics, that the world has not already recognized. The vast majority of small businesses in the world are not notable, as we use that word to define the standard I summarized of previous recognition in writing. Generally, this means that unless reliable, secondary and independent sources have written about the shop or firm in substantive detail, a stand-alone article is not warranted. Please also be aware of our conflict of interest guideline, and that people owning or involved in a business, wanting to write about that business, must provide disclosure of paid editing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

How to be an effective editor?
How to be an effective editor?16:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjbcawili (talk • contribs)
 * That's a very open question, ! I would say it's about finding your "niche" here on Wikipedia. There are lots of jobs that help improve the encyclopaedia: writing articles (about things that interest you, things that we're missing, or things people want to read about), copyediting, counter-vandalism, patrolling, the list goes on and on. If you can find some tasks that interest you and that you're good at, you're definitely an effective editor. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

edit
How to edit page and create new pages ? Also, how to change the name of a main article?16:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjbcawili (talk • contribs) 16:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello again . You can edit (almost) any article simply by clicking the "edit" tab at the top right of the page. Creating new articles from scratch is more difficult, but you can use the article wizard. To move pages (change their title) you have to be slightly more experienced, but until you get there you can ask someone else to do it on the article's talk page. You might find the the Wikipedia Adventure, a short tutorial on editing Wikipedia, helpful in getting started. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

##1
how to delete our notifications or alerts? How to clear some unwanted msgs on our user talk page ? kindly let me know about this by discussing thank you. jordan (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Just to clarify, are you taking about notices and alerts or messages on your user talk page? They are two different things. Notifications and alerts appear in the icons in the top right of the page (the bell and the inbox) and are only visible to you. I don't think you can delete them but if you click the circle next to one it will mark it as read and won't bother you any more. User talk pages are the main way Wikipedians communicate with each other and are visible to anybody. You can edit your talk page (User talk:Jordanben) just like any other page – click "edit" in the top right of the page. However, usually people don't delete old messages, they leave them there as a record for themselves and other editors. If your talk page gets too crowded, what you could do is archive it instead. Hope that helps. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

My article is not on any Google search
I have written an article entitled Bill Elliott (musician), but the article appears to be transparent on any Google search, even using the exact words. After I was finished with it in my sandbox, I blanked the namespace article by mistake, (instead of my sandbox version) but undid it. The article shows up OK within Wiki, but not outside Wiki. The same is true for Google searching for a keyword within the article. Can you help? Thanks--Eagledj (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. A decision was taken some months ago that new pages would be NOINDEXed until they have been accepted by the New pages patrol process.  This came as a surprise to many editors.  There is an increasing queue (currently 15618 pages) awaiting patrol, and a backlog of more than 3 months. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, David Biddulph. I did not know this, and it seems like a Good Idea! Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Technically that decision was made five years ago, but didn't take effect until recently due to a software bug. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Assessing an article
I'm a new user (about 800 edits) and I've been working on the article Guccio di Mannaia which is categorized as "Start-Class", but I'd like to ask someone to take a look at it to advise me how it might be improved. Is there a particular place to ask?

Thanks!

TimeForLunch (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, your best options for such specific assistance are either WP:WikiProject Visual arts or WP:WikiProject Biography. Post your request to either Project's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I think that the most obvious area for improvement would be to add a photo of the Chalice of Nicholas IV, which seems to be his best known work. It may take some effort to find (or take) a freely licensed photo, but adding one would certainly enhance the reader's understanding. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  18:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting topic,, and an interesting article – nice work! My first stop for info on that sort of figure is always the remarkable Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, which I see you've already consulted; those articles tend to have a very full bibliography, and following up those leads might perhaps lead to some further information. Many of them are likely to be quite hard to track down. On the article qua article, some quick changes you could make might be: (1) more wikilinks – not everyone knows what a chalice is, for example; (2) cut out "deceased" and any other euphemisms, replace with "dead" or other plain English word; (3) be ruthless with anything that might appear as peacockery or puffery – "widely considered a masterpiece" is almost certainly true, but is not something you need to say here, it should be obvious from the description; (4) expand general statements where it's easy to do so – even if the source says "the papal court", it should be pretty straightforward to look up who the actual popes were that Pace di Valentino worked for; (5) build round your article – an article on Pace, even if brief, would add context (and a wikilink) to Guccio; (6) (should probably have been #1) do what suggests; (7) use human-readable dates! – we aren't machines, ordinary mdy or dmy works fine here. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all this input, Roger (Dodger67) (talk), <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it, and  Justlettersandnumbers (talk).  I’ll take all these suggestions and work on them as time permits. This advice will also help with other articles going forward. TimeForLunch (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Being asked to rewrite but don't know why
It would be helpful if someone could give me an example from my attempt, that indicates specifically why it needs a 'major rewrite' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Digital_Literacy_Coach eg, you have written this "...", which is unacceptable because "..."... please? I've modelled my post on other Wikipedia articles and asked friends to proofread, and can't see how to move this forward. Having already committed many hours to this, this is now extremely frustrating. :( Mistermchugh (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!  The reason your draft was rejected was primarily one of WP:TONE. As reviewer  wrote:
 * "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."


 * That is good advice. Following the advice on the pages WP:NOTESSAY, WP:TONE, WP:MFA and WP:SMOS will help you get your article approved. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Your draft does not read as a neutral encyclopedia article about the topic of a "Digital literacy coach" but rather a review of the literature discussing the topic and also as an advocacy piece more or less arguing that this job title is a good idea. It comes off almost as a manual for implementing the position within an an organization. There are stylistic issues as well. We do not use the formula "Smith and Jones (2005) argue that . . ." Instead, we provide full bibliographic information in footnotes (also called references), rather than shortened bibliographic information in the body of the article. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  07:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Your draft does not read as a neutral encyclopedia article about the topic of a "Digital literacy coach" but rather a review of the literature discussing the topic and also as an advocacy piece more or less arguing that this job title is a good idea. It comes off almost as a manual for implementing the position within an an organization. There are stylistic issues as well. We do not use the formula "Smith and Jones (2005) argue that . . ." Instead, we provide full bibliographic information in footnotes (also called references), rather than shortened bibliographic information in the body of the article. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  07:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've already rewritten the article in a neutral tone, this seems like an extremely subjective matter, so I'm asking if someone could illustrate exactly how the tone of my article is inappropriate with a specific example. I've read the pages you've linked to, but I feel the text confirms these expectations. Specific feedback would be far more helpful than generic criticism.

Mistermchugh (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks Cullen that's more helpful, I used the text in this Wikipedia article as guide, who use exactly the formula you've described.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formative_assessment For example where they say, "Kluger and DeNisi (1996)[26] reviewed over three thousand reports on feedback..." So it's acceptable in that post but not in mine? This is the subjectivity I'm struggling with. Again, a specific example would be far less ambiguous and far more productive. Mistermchugh (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The use is just as wrong in that article as it is in yours. Generally, if you want a guide from which to base your article off of, you should use a featured article. Some new users choose to create articles themselves after having become auto confirmed rather than via the WP:AFC process, or articles are simply updated by newer users who don't know the proper way to WP:CITE; thus some sections of Wikipedia receive more scrutiny than others. But the existence of a problem with one page does not justify the existence of a problem on another. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it is not acceptable in that article either,  . That article should be copy edited to remove that type of prose. We have well over five million articles and probably one to two million of them have glaring problems and need work. That does not mean that we should add new articles that also have glaring problems. Instead,  we want well developed new articles that comply with our core content policies and at least approximate compliance with our Manual of style.


 * As for a specific example, consider this sentence: "Attempting to provide technical skills training onsite to teachers in the use of technology has been found to be insufficient, and teaching skills in isolation can be ineffective in ensuring that teachers develop this kind of knowledge, for example, how to use technology to teach content in differentiated ways according to students' learning needs, or technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK); how technology can be used to support the learning of specific curriculum content, or technological content knowledge (TCK); or how to help students meet particular curriculum content standards while using technologies appropriately, (technological pedagogical and content knowledge, or TPACK) in their learning; this is where employing the services of a dedicated DLC has been found to be useful." With all due respect,  that sentence is excessively long and convoluted,  uses excessive jargon and acronyms,  and is confusing to me even after I have read it several times. Instead,  we want neutral, descriptive prose that is concise and clear, and avoids any trace of advocacy. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  08:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jim, this is much more helpful. Trust me to pick an article as model that is flawed. This gives me the direction I needed, your time and specificity is much appreciated.

MisterMcHugh (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that there's another issue, unrelated to those described above. The writer is too close to the subject, and "can't see the wood for the trees". The article appears to be addressed to readers who already know what a DLC is. many readers won't know, and the article doesn't tell them. For example:


 * The first sentence says that DLCs are employed at schools that have "a 1:1 provision of devices". It says nothing about what kind of device. A fountain pen? A cricket bat? I guess it means a personal computer; if so, the article needs to say so.


 * The second paragraph preaches aboout how schools don't employ enough DLCS. But while the reader has no idea what a DLC does, it is unclear why they should employ any at all. There's a mention of "expensive hardware": maybe the DLC's job is to prevent the pupils from stealing the "devices"? Maproom (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can understand your confusion. While I cannot say with certainty that the duty of a DLC is not to assure that devices aren't stolen, I believe that the main job of the DLC is to help teachers learn about and use the technology that the school is paying for. I agree that this absolutely should be stated in the article. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Maproom as hard as this is for me to admit, you've probably hit the nail on the head with the 'wood for the trees' comment, now there's way too many idioms in this thread. Part of the reason for wanting this post on Wikipedia is that I'm hoping it will open this up to a wider audience, but for now, despite my arboreal proximity, I'm the only one who is prepared to write this, and also knowledgeable about the role. My hope if it ever gets published is too put out to a wider community to invite a wider discussion.

Psiĥedelisto you hit the nail on the head, so there must be something in the article that makes sense. MisterMcHugh (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC) MisterMcHugh (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately,, wanting to "open this up to a wider audience" is a bad place to start in writing for Wikipedia. This is a bit paradoxical, because obviously people do write articles specifically because they think they should be there. But Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion: it reports on topics which have already been written about. If your purpose is opening up a topic to a wider audience, there are other places which fit that purpose better. --ColinFine (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

ColinFine We can nitpick about the semantics and sensibilities about what you may or may not feel are my possibly nefarious motivations for creating this post—but let me assure you, I have one motivation, to add to the existing body knowledge; that is it. I have no agenda, I do not stand to benefit personally from this article, I created it because quite frankly I was/am amazed that there isn't already an article dealing with this, which is also more than a little ironic given the nature of the role. So, to clarify, as I see the whole point of Wikipedia in large part about opening up knowledge in general 'to a wider audience' ie not just those who are have paid for access to an online encyclopedia. That's it, is that so hard to accept? MisterMcHugh (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't mean to suggest anything in any way nefarious,, and if I came across that way, I apologise. I absolutely recognise your good intent in writing this: I was trying to suggest a reason why you might be finding it a frustrating experience, that (from what you had said) I thought your intention was not quite in alignment with that of Wikipedia. I'm sorry if it came over any other way. --ColinFine (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

How to delete a file. Should be simple and straightforward but not working out that way.
I am trying to delete a duplicate file. The HELP sections says that files are deleted in the same manner as pages and that the process is very simple. Go tot he file (or page) and there is a delete button at the top of the page and you click that and a dialog box will ask for the underlying reason.

Of course when I open the file there is no delete button anywhere in sight and so I am unable to delete the duplicate file.

Please help! 75.155.187.94 (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Which file are you trying to delete? --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, IP editor. Please take a look at Files for discussion, where you can nominate any file you wish for deletion. Though I am not familiar with the "delete button" you mention,  please be aware that not all functions are available to unregistered editors. Please consider opening an optional Wikipedia account,  which offers many benefits and no negatives. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  08:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi person editing from 75.155.187.94. It sounds as if maybe you read an instruction page directed at administrators—who do have a deletion button; non-administrators do not. In addition to the instructions above, it's possible that if it is truly a duplicate separate file, or a duplicate version of a single file, then tagging it for speedy deletion might be possible. It must strictly meet the criterion though, which are set out at Criteria for speedy deletion. The deletion tags that you would place on the file page, if a speedy deletion criterion applies, is given for each criterion at the page I linked. A second possibility occurs to me. If the file is at the Wikimedia Commons, rather than on Wikipedia (people often don't realize images they see are not actually hosted here but there), then there is a "nominate for Deletion" link under the tools menu on the left hand side of the page. None of the deletion methods anyone has discussed here will apply to the Commons, though they have equivalent procedures. See Commons:Deletion policy. By the way, if you had told us the name of the actual file, we all could have crafted far more targeted answers for you. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I guess you refer Administrators' guide/Deleting. The page is for administrators as the name clearly says, and the second line on the page says: Basically, click on the "delete" tab at the top of the page (the tab will only appear if you are an administrator logged in to your account). In the future, please provide links to pages you refer to, in this case both the file and help page. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the helpful responses to my questions.

This is my first WP article that I am creating and I am not familiar at all with all your protocols. I am definitely not an administrator and that is probably why I could not see the delete button. Yes the file that I am trying to delete is in Wiki Commons so I will read up on that side of the house. I will be more specific about file names in future if I need more help. 75.155.187.94 (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Still need your help to delete my .jpg file in Wiki Commons.
I am trying to do a speedy delete of one of my files named File: Jean Jepson circa circa late 1940s or early 1950s.jpg I have had some feedback from your help desk. From these replies I am now aware that I am not an administrator and so I do not have access to the delete button. The file was created in Wiki Commons following the Upload Wizard instructions. I have read the help links on Deleting and they provide a lot of details but I cannot find where to go to do the delete and how exactly to do it. It may be simpler if you deleted. I only have two files and I am trying to eliminate clutter. I made an error in the file name and put in the word "circa" twice. That is all.75.155.187.94 (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the file was uploaded to Commons, the file needs to be deleted there. If you are c:User:CableHut who uploaded the file, then you should log in to your account, gp to the file's page at c:File:Jean Jepson circa circa late 1940s or early 1950s.jpg, and then add c:Template:SDG7 to the top of the page. You can do this by simply adding  to the very top of the file's page. You do, however, need to add this template within 6 days from the date of upload. If you are not the uploader, then you can request that the file be deleted by going to the file's page on Commons, looking at the side bar on the left, and then clicking on "Nominate for deletion". As it is the file has been tagged for not having proper permission, so it will eventually be deleted by a Commons' administrator after 7 days if proper permission is not provided.


 * Please also note that the other file (File:Jean Jepson Portrait circa late 1940s or early 1950s.jpg) has also been tagged for not having proper permission, and this file will also be deleted unless you can provide proof that it has been released under a free license. Please refer to c:COM:OTRS for further information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Badges and groups.
Hi! I am very new to Wikipedia (as you can tell by my profile) and still finding out new things every day. I love contributing and helping the 'wiki community'. I recently came across a contributors profile and noticed they had certain badges/awards and was wondering how they gained them? I've done a bit of researching but only been able to find that I may have to join some 'groups' to earn badges? I hope you are able to tell me a bit more about these and point me in the right direction.

Many thanks. Kinghumez (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Kinghumez, welcome to the Teahouse. You didn't name the user and there are different types of badges and awards. The large majority don't depend on joining any groups. The easiest to get are from The Wikipedia Adventure which automatically gives badges like TWA/Badgeometer to users who do the missions. See Awards for some of the other possibilities. They often require a lot of work or a friendly editor noticing your good edits – making lots of good edits increases the chance of that. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . All awards and badges on Wikipedia are informal and unofficial. Please read about Service awards, which are self awarded based on length of service and editing activity. Another common type of award are Barnstars, which are given by one editor to another for various types of productive activities. You can also get a variety of badges for completing the Wikipedia Adventure, but in all honesty, those are pretty trivial. There are a variety of other more prestigious awards, such as Wikipedian of the Month,  and so on. Focus above all on improving the encyclopedia, and these awards will come to you as time goes by. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  23:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And there is another possibility, : some users also put "userboxes" on their user page, to highlight their qualifications, interests, etc. If you want to find about a specific badge on a User's page, you can always ask on their Talk page - if they went to the trouble of posting it, I'm sure they would be happy to answer a question.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

How can I find my deleted article in the deletion log.
Hi,

I wrote a page called 'Transcrypt' about a popular open source project I initiated. It was deleted because it was considered promotional. The reasons are said to be in the deletion log. I tried to search for record of this deletion in the log, but couldn't find it. I've filled in my user name and the name of the page, but there were zero hits.

Kind regards Jacques de Hooge Jacdeh (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. It wasn't an article, it was a draft. The link is there from the notification on your user talk page.  The link goes to Draft:Transcrypt, which shows you the deletion log entry for that page. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, David, for your reply. I have seen the entry you refer to. Only I wasn't aware that this was indeed a deletion log entry. The person deleting the page replied me to look in the deletion log to find the reasons why. However I only found the original remark about lacking references there. The point is that I've added those references in order to comply with quality and notability standards. I didn't get any reaction to that. Not that these references were good enough. Not that they were worthless. The page was just deleted, that's all. So I try to get into a conversation with someone experienced about how to improve this page. But I don't succeed in that, which I find frustrating. So at least I am glad to have obtained an helpful answer from a human being. I will for now not invest anymore time in this page. Not that I'm not willing to in principle, but there's no guarantee I'll get a decent reaction after even more effort. Still I consider Wikipedia very useful. Using it almost daily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacdeh (talk • contribs) 14:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, . There seems to be a bit of confusion here. The message on your user talk page says that the draft was rejected (not deleted) by last August, for lack of adequate references. Separately, the deletion log says that the draft was deleted by  last week for a different reason: that it was unambiguous advertising or promotion. Why there is this difference in view, I don't know (as I am not an admin, I can't look at deleted pages). Perhaps between August and this month you added material which made it more promotional; perhaps SwisterTwister noticed the lack of references and didn't consider the text; perhaps those two would actually disagree about whether it was unambiguous advertising: you could ask Athaenara for more information (I've linked them above, so they should get a notification about this reply). But the point I'm making is that while adding references could meet SwisterTwister's original rejection, it would probably not satisfy Athaenara's judgment for deletion, which was on different grounds. It is certainly often the case that people close to a topic find it hard to judge how promotional some text is: that's why we discourage people from editing articles where they have a conflict of interest. One way I like to think of it that, if you started the project, then Wikipedia has essentially no interest at all in what you think, know, have said, or want to say about it (I'm not trying to be offensive, just blunt): it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the project have published about it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, alright, I can of course not be considered to be objective. Thank you for the clear and extensive explanation. I didn't add anything else then references, one of them to a book, in which I had no say, nor do I know the author, but the project is descibed there in a separate paragraph. Also there's a reference to a discussion on stackoverflow. But perhaps I shouldn't be the one writing the article, although I think on the other hand I am the most knowlegeable about this subject. Anyhow I value your careful reply and do not at all consider it offensive. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacdeh (talk • contribs) 08:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

changing logo & editing content
Hello,

I would like to edit this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Tobacco_Group by adding my company*s new logo and changing the text. I have added text in the back end and for some reason not all the changes have been applied when publish. Please advise.

Many thanks. Andreayoung (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Already answered at Help desk - please do not ask the same question in multiple places - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Tips for editing in wikipedia
Q.Hi I am SawOnGam and I am a rookie who joined wikipedia recently only about 10 fays and I want to know about the codes used in the wikipedia So can you list me the codes with their functions used in wikipedia Sawongam (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * ANS:Hey Sawongam. I assume that by "codes" what you mean is the markup that is used to format articles and talk pages. For an overview of all the most common types of markup used on Wikipedia, see Help:Wiki markup. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You may also find Help:Cheatsheet a useful summary - Arjayay (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much - Arjayay (talk) For your kindness :-) Sawongam (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Links to de.wikipedia.org show as external links on en.wikipedia.org
Hi I'm creating the page for an artist called Maria Hinze (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Hinze). I want to link to one of her professors, Walter Obholzer (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Obholzer) but as his page is in German on the de.wikipedia.org it always shows as an external link, and now I have been told that this is against the rules of Wiki, but I can't figure out how to keep it as an internal link. Can anybody help? Many thanks Pseudophile (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Pseudophile. A regular wikilink to a foreign language Wikipedia article is created by placing a colon at the start of the link markup, then the language code, and then piping the link to the name you want to display. Thus Walter Obholzer displays as Walter Obholzer. There is also a template that is sometimes used, ill, to display the name being linked as a red link while still providing a blue link to the foreign article, and in that way, invite creation of the article here. However, this should only be used where the foreign language article is clearly a notable topic (under English Wikipedia's standards). I'm not sure that's the case here, as the German article is not well sourced (and I did not search to confirm myself). See also Help:Interlanguage links. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

How to handle reliable sources only available w/ UN/PW or by PDF
For an entry I'm writing on an entrepreneur, I'd like to use a profile that Businessweek did of him. Unfortunately, it is not available online except as a PDF via Ebsco which I access through my library (NY Public).

The PDFs are scans of the hard copy magazine, so you see the magazine name and date in the footer. I can include link to it in Ebsco, but the url comes up as a "proxy" which is some kind of red flag to the editors, and probably won't work because you need a library card with a UN/PW.

I have downloaded the PDF's and could archive them somewhere (archive.org, say), but I don't want to go the trouble only to find out that against the rules.

I'm sure this problem has come up before and am hoping someone can direct me to the right info -- or give it to me direct.

Sam Perkins (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . Sources do not have to be available online. See Offline sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Sam Perkins. Template:Cite includes a parameter |url-access=subscription which indicates to other readers that a paid subscription is required to access the material. Otherwise, sources behind paid subscriptions are allowed under Wikipedia's verifiability standards, even if they're less than ideal. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

WOW! That was fast. Thanks for such a speedy reply. Checking out your solutions now.

Sam Perkins (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And for completeness,, I'll point out that uploading a PDF of a reference is hardly ever useful. Often it would be a copyright violation anyway, but even if it is freely licensed, it will hardly ever meet the requirement of reliability: even if it was downloaded from a reliable source, it could have been altered. --ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Colin -- Just to be clear, the pdf shows a scanned copy of the magazine itself -- like a photo of the magazine, showing the print on the paper -- like referencing a page or a chapter in a book via Google books, where you see the scan of the actual page.

Thanks again.

66.108.182.251 (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Sam66.108.182.251 (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Bio of a living person
Hello, How I can create a new article, if my article is already on Wiki? I need to create a Bio of a living person,but not edit existing page. Margor.88 (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just edit the existing article. We don't create multiple articles about the same subject. By "my article" did you mean that the article is about you? If that is the case then you have a WP:conflict of interest and normally should not edit the article. See WP:COISELF for the limited exceptions. Any other edits should be proposed on the article's talk page. Meters (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Already asked and answered  at help desk. Asking more than once isn't going to change the answer. User works for the subject of the article, and is at COIN Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Meters (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, how do I find the list of suggested articles?
Thanks PGA2013 (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Most-wanted articles and Requested articles list possibly useful and requested articles. I'd also recommend to read Your first article as it has a lot of good advice for new contributors (and I will also post a few other useful links to your talkpage). Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there a writers guide to how to write articles?
I'd like to write an article, however, I don't want to make to many mistakes, format things incorrectly, or present information in the wrong way. Is there a writers guide? Zachary G. 19:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZachAttrax (talk • contribs)


 * Hey ZachAttrax. Check out guidance at Your first article and the somewhat more in-depth tutorial at Writing better articles. Hope these help. Timothy Joseph Wood  20:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is my version of the post reverted
Why is my version of the post reverted when the new version gives the summary of work done by the personality over his lifetime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shobhit.dalal (talk • contribs) 18:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've moved the question to the top of the page to its correct location chronologically.-- talk2Chun  (talk) (contributions) 22:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for your note. It looks like this edit that you made to Asaram,  was reverted because it did not adhere to two critical policies of wikipedia: a neutral presentation of information (see WP:NPOV) that has been verified by high-quality sources (see WP:V and WP:RS).


 * If you are concerned that an article about a living person is not written fairly, you can make a post at the noticeboard concerned with Wikipedia's biographies of living persons, WP:BLPN. However, in this case I do not believe that other editors will support your contention, because your changes to Asaram were not supported by citations from reliable sources. -Darouet (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, the text you've replaced (which you consider negative), concerns facts, which (as far as I can tell) are corroborated by sources elsewhere in the text. Please also note the comments left on your Talk page, where another editor indicated that your edits and revisions can be considered as edit warring, which is highly frowned upon (and could lead to your account being blocked). If you feel that the Article is not neutral, you are should first try to find reliable sources which any text you wish to add/edit. Your best option, after that, is to discuss these reliable sources on the Article's talk page, and try to come to a consensus with the Wikipedia community. -- talk2Chun  (talk) (contributions) 22:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Shobhit.dalal, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've had a look at the page you're referring to (Asaram), as well as it's history. From what I understand, the main reason why your edits are being reverted is because Wikipedia requires that most information be verifiable by reliable sources, and written in a neutral point of view. From what I've seen, your edits here, here and here all include a number of (what you've described as positive) statements. The problem with these statements, as some of the editors have remarked, are that there are no reliable sources which corroborate your additions, and that the statements are not written in a neutral point of view.