Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 918

Why my edited page is removed
I have edited the page related to Zafar Sareshwala many times, but every time the edited details are being removed by. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zafar_Sareshwala why the deatils are being removed watever i added was all correct information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venusthelovegoddess (talk • contribs) 11:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits were removed because they were not sourced; all edits must be sourced to independent reliable sources.  This is especially true about people who are alive; if content about a living person is not sourced, it cannot be in the article.  Please read the Biographies of Living Persons policy. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Look at Zafar Sareshwala: Revision history, the editors who reverted you have written WP:EDITSUMMARIES. If you disagree with their reasons, start a discussion with them. What you are doing now is WP:EDITWARRING. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @ Gråbergs Gråa Sång thnks for the reply

Could you pleez tell me how to add sources to the edited information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venusthelovegoddess (talk • contribs) 18:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Help:Referencing for beginners. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

A pair of questions from the beginner.
Hello everybody! I'm planning to improve my article draft Draft:Boris_Turzhanskiy, so I've got a couple of questions. At first, is it possible to cite archive documents as proofs and how it is done in en-wiki? At second, is it possible to use illustrations, downloaded in ru-wiki, here? And how (if the picture wasn't uploaded to Commons)? Please excuse me if I've mistaken in something. EX690662 (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. In answer to your first question: it depends on what you mean by "archived documents". It is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that all information in articles must come from reliably published sources. If the document has been published, then it can be cited: if it is a private document stored in an archive, then it probably can't be. For how to cite it, please look at REFB: the important thing is the bibliographic information that tells a reader what the document is and who published it and when: the sources does not have to be available online, and a URL is a convenience, not an essential part of the citation.
 * For the second question, it depends on the copyright status of the picture. If it is public domain, or has been released by the copyright owner under a licence compatible with CC-BY-SA, then it can be transferred to Commons, and used from there: see commons:First steps/File transfer and tools. If not, it is possible that it could be separately uploaded to en-wiki, but only if its use satisfies all the criteria in the non-free content criteria. (Note that different langauge Wikipedias have different rules, so the fact that it is used in ru-wiki does not automatically mean that it can be used in en-wiki). You would do this by downloading it to your device from ru-wiki and then uploading it to en-wiki. --ColinFine (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But see also for referencing publicly available documents in formally established archival repositories. This looks an interesting draft - well done. Could you give us a url to the ru-wiki page, please? I can't find him by using the English spelling of his name. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's ru:Туржанский, Борис Александрович, . v--ColinFine (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks everybody! Now I think I understand what and how to do to improve the draft!EX690662 (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * While sources in english are not mandatory, they don't hurt either. at least mention him. You could try to ask for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

how to publish over wikipedia
after creating a page and including all details which was available related to article, under sandbox then i published it. but its been around 1 month and my wikipedia is not appearing in google. how to get it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palvindersingh10 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . As it says on your user talk page, Your draft User:Palvindersingh10/sandbox was deleted for being unambiguously promotional. —teb728 t c 08:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately it looks like you may have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are not personal profiles or a place to promote a person. Articles must be about subjects that are notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability, as documented in reliable independent sources, and they must be written in a neutral manner. Ideally, Wikipedia articles should always be written by people who have no connection to the person, and autobiographies should be avoided. This page has some suggestions of alternative outlets, websites where they accept content that is not acceptable at Wikipedia. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 10:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

How to Request Help with an Article?
Hello, I have created a living person biography 'draft' that is pending review. I wanted to inquire if there is a process to request for someone to take a look to see if I have attributed the quotations properly and if this is an acceptable practice - some are in the body and some are indented. Also would be very helpful to have input on the content if it reads in a NPOV to determine if it still needs more work. I am new at this. Have done a lot of ready but still would appreciate the help if that is possible in this space. Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I cannot comment on the quality of the citations at this time, but just a couple minor style pointers (shouldn't affect draft acceptance, but will improve it): please don't use title case in the headers, and make sure to use quotation marks instead of double apostrophes. -A la d insane  (Channel 2)  16:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The draft is at Draft:Kent Tate. Putting it to review, as you have done, is the intended process to get some feedback.
 * (Channel 2)  I changed the title case and will correct the double apostrophes to quotation marks.  I didn't realize I had done this...  can you give provide me with an example so I can see where I've used the double apostrophes? Thank you very much!! LorriBrown (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you sure File:Kent_Tate.jpg is eligible for CC-BY-SA licensing? The URL in the file information is a 404, but in any case the main site does not waive copyrights. Copyright violations are a big no-no on Wikipedia. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the picture but can you help me understand what the problem is? Thank you!!! LorriBrown (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, but I will ask for the picture to be deleted from the servers as well.
 * The problem is that by default, images you find on the internet are copyrighted, which means you cannot distribute (publish) them without the consent of whoever holds their rights (usually the photographer). (See our article about copyright.) Legally, we would probably be able to use such on Wikipedia under relevant exceptions (mostly "fair use" which allows reusing material for critical commentary), but on Wikipedia we are more restrictive than "fair use" (because we want articles to be easily reusable by anybody, even for purposes not covered by fair use). The list of criteria is at WP:NFCC whose #1 "...or could be created" clause means photographs of living persons cannot be used (since in theory you could go ahead and make your own photography of them).
 * In any case, even a legal use of copyrighted material does not allow you to unilaterally relicense the work under something different such as CC-BY-SA. So the licensing information you gave when uploading the file is incorrect, unless you took the photograph yourself or the website specifies a CC-BY-SA license (again, I cannot access the URL but I really doubt so). Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Correction: I see the image was actually uploaded by the account on Commons two years ago. Is that a different person, or is it an account you created (but whose password you forgot for instance)?  Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think you should consider the guidance at WP:QUOTEFARM. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk I will take a look. Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That was a very interesting version of failed ping. Skål! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do/must we be paid if we are giving information and data out of the goodness of our existence(s)/existense(s)?
I am asking because nobody ever wanted to donate to the free encyclopaedia known as "wiki wikipedia" on googleDOTca. If the encyclopaedia is free, so is the information, and that and vice versa is also fair, as in, if the information is free, so is the encyclopeadia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:FB52:7700:65DB:B7CC:5F0B:C540 (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This question does not seem to have anything to do with editing Wikipedia, or with this Wikipedia at all, for that matter. Meters (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The user seem to be asking why Wikipedia calls for donation if it supposedly is free. The answer is that, just as NGOs feeding starving African children or whatever, it has some operational costs, even if its philosophy is not to recoup those costs by charging the final user, just as NGOs don't charge the starving African children for the food they give. Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would let this user know that if they don't want to see requests for donations, they can register an account and then shut them off. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

what to add in content
Can you suggest me how can I place or what type of content are fair to put into Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.225.235.80 (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. That is a very broad question; is there something specific you were interested in adding?  Wikipedia covers subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability.  There are sometimes more specific notability guidelines for some subject areas(such as organizations)  The content must be supported with independent reliable sources, sources not associated with the subject in any way. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Are references in Japanese acceptable on English Wikipedia.
The only information I could find in English about the subject was on their own website, twitter, e-shop or youtube etc. I was told that is not a good enough source. I contacted the subject and they said they will send me links to articles but they will be in Japanese. Can I use them for my sources / references ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akumu-Metal (talk • contribs) 00:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is OK. English sources are preferred, but foreign language sources are allowed also.  See WP:RSUE.  RudolfRed (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that simply having sources does not mean that material will be appropriate for the article, or that your draft Draft:Keisandeath will be accepted. Also, since you contacted the subject, do you have a conflict of interest? Please see WP:COI Meters (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . As pointed out above foreign language sources can be used, but English one's are preferred. Any sources you cite for an English Wikipedia article (regardless of which language they are in) are going to need to satisfy Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and it sounds like the sources you're intending to use are either going to be primary ones or self-published ones; such sources can sometimes be used, but they need to be used carefully and they are pretty much never considered sufficient alone for establishing Wikipedia:Notability so that a stand-alone article can be written. What you should be looking for is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources in which other people are discussing the subject matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't believe I have a conflict of interest because I only contacted them to ask permission to make the wiki and use any photos and information I could find on my own. Unfortunately what I found was not enough so I requested they send me Japanese articles for references. I have never met them and I am in North Carolina USA and they are in Tokyo Japan and I have no affiliation with the group. I do listen to the music they make but my only intention is to create a record about the group for those who seek more information about them. I am not making the page to promote the group or gain anything for myself. The articles I am trying to get are secondary sources that have reported about the album releases or activity taking place by the group such as LIVE performances. I do remember a blog interview that mentions some background information as well but I can't find it. I am waiting to see what they send me to continue making the page. Akumu-Metal (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akumu-Metal (talk • contribs) 02:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You might not intend to be making a page which promotes the band in some way, but the band might be seeing this as an opportunity to do just that. They may be sending you sources that pretty much only promote them and their music. I'm not sure if this is the same band, but I checked Japanese Wikipedia for an article about them and found ja:Keisandeath. That article was speedily deleted from Japanese Wikipedia last year as being too promotion for Japanese Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia project has it's own policies and guidelines. There are many similarities across the varous Wikipedias, but also many differences; in general, however, English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines tend to be more restrictive compared to other Wikipedias mainly because it has the most articles and the most people editing. So, if an article about the band cannot survive deletion on Japanese Wikipedia (where the editors should have no difficultly finding, reading and assessing Japanese language sources), it seems unlikely that an article about the band could be written for English Wikipedia. Perhaps the things have changed since last year and the band is no longer WP:TOOSOON. Maybe you should try asking about this at WT:JAPAN to see if anyone there can find out more about the band for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC
 * There's no COI with what the user describes. It's somewhat unusual for editors to be able to directly contact article subjects, which is why I asked. Meters (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd like to second what said above: foreign language sources are OK when there's not enough English language sources. However those sources must prove the subject's notability. Notability, in general, is a social interest being 'big enough' – when the subject is written about in newspapers or handbooks, when there are scientific articles or popular movies about it, when it wins recognized decorations or awards, then it is notable. This implies notability is language-dependent and culture-dependent: some musician, politician, book, village, art event or building may be famous in one country or nation whilst remaining unknown in other parts of the world. Hence I'd say that IMHO Japanese sources alone do not prove notability for English-language Wikipedia. If English-speaking world doesn't talk and write about X, then X is not notable for English-speaking part of mankind, hence in English-language Wikipedia. As a result, my point of view is that an article in enwiki based on Japanese sources only would be a promotion on the English-speaking market. Please wait until the subject gains some recognition in reliable, English-language secondary sources, then write about it. As for now, it's Too Soon. --CiaPan (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

New page for a historic Artist
Hi folks

My grandpa died in 1978. He was a noted calligrapher, and pupil of the renowned Edward Johnston (who IS on Wikipedia), and sometime collaborator with Eric Gill I'd like to create a Wiki page for him, perhaps linking to images of some of his work - though much was commercial so I may have copyright problems with that.

My question is about citation - as he died before the start of wikipedia there isn't much about him that I can reference online. Is it okay to reference books and documents owned by the family in the page text? Can we reference for example an oral history of his life which is held in a Museum?

AndyBeck (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Sources for any article need to be independent reliable sources and need to be verifiable.  It is not required that they be online(helpful, yes, but not required) or easy to verify(i.e. paying a fee, learning a foreign language, etc are all okay).  It is needed for the sources to be accessible to anyone interested; books are fine as long as it is possible for anyone to read them.  If your family has the only copy of a book in existence and doesn't allow the public access to it, that would be problematic, but as long as it can be viewed by the public it is okay. An oral history held by a museum should be fine, I think. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We do have a special referencing template for archives held in public institutions (see but unfortunately you may not used documents and papers that only you alone hold. These would simply not be regarded as 'publicly available' should other users wish to check the veracity of the page's contents, nor should user-edited genealogical websites be used, as these don't have any editorial oversight to them. I do understand your position - a recently deceased relative of mine was an illustrator of a number of mainstream books in the 1950s and 60s, who illustrated works for more than one big publisher, and who also worked on design drawings for the Lancaster bomber. But they won't ever meet our notability criteria although, as I am now the sole legal owner of all their artwork, I had considered putting a few of them onto Wikimedia Commons (original book jacket illustrations, nude drawings of Quentin Crisp etc) as a way of making some of their work useful to other articles here, even if there's not enough sources to demonstrate 'notability' about them as far as Wikipedia would see it. They were notable enough to me - and that's what really counts. Good luck with your own project on Albert Edward Barlow. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Content deleted
I'm new to wikipedia editing and it seems like I've already broken some rules. I'm very disappointed, however, to see that the content I created was deleted due to potential conflict of interest because I am connected with the charity for which I was adding content. The existing page was considerably out of date and all the information added was taken directly from the charity website, so in my view, it was both referenced and neutral content.

As it is unlikely that anyone else will update this page, and it is now out of date again, could you advise me of how we can update it in a way that doesn't break the editing rules.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plentyoriginal990 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , You can make a Edit Request on the talk page, and an uninvolved user will evaluate and decide whether to add it or not. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet question
There is nothing happining right now, but:

Can you respond to a sockpuppet investigation when you are not a checkuser? -- The Win Rat Here!  17:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a "Comments by other users" section. It should be used to provide behavioural evidence about whether the checkuser is warranted. Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

COI Suggestions on Talk page
Hello,

I hope my question is general, but concerns the page: Samaritan Health Services

I am an employee of a company, and thus have a Conflict of Interest. Any guidance/examples on how is best to suggest edits to the company's page via the Talk page?

An editor had some good recommendations about my first suggestion via Talk. Should I start a new topic with my re-write with a request template? Simply add to the bottom of their reply? Rewrite the original request and depend on the Talk page's history to make the historical context clearer?

If the page needs some significant work (in my case, several pages are flagged be editors that they should be merged with the SHS page) how might I go about helping with that? Should I put in a request on Talk with all the content? Put up something on my User area and point to that on the SHS Talk page?

I think I will be skipping the decaf today.

Thank you all for your efforts,

John At SHS (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Thanks for coming here and asking. You are in an awkward position, especially if you feel that a major rewrite is required. I think the principle to bear in mind is that you are asking people to do something which you are not allowed to do yourself; but everybody here is a volunteer, so you are more likely to get results if you make the task as attractive and easy as you can. So I would suggest
 * break the changes up into reasonable size chunks if possible, rather than one huge rewrite;
 * specify as precisely as you can what change you think should be made (eg "Replace text XXX by YYY"). The editor who carries out the request may decide that what you have requested is not precisely appropriate, but it is usually easier to respond to a specific request than a general one;
 * give reliable published sources for any information you wish to introduce. Unless the information is uncontroversial factual data like places and dates, give sources independent of the company. (Even things like turnover and numbers of employees are not always uncontroversial).
 * I suggest it is best to put each request in a separate section on the talk page, with its own edit request: that way, editors can pick them off one at a time. You should almost never remove or change something that is already on a Talk page.
 * If you are proposing significant amounts of text, it is perfectly acceptable to put it in a user subpage and link to it: see the request I made at Talk:Bradford Playhouse for an example. --ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, That's just the advice & example I am looking for. Since this is a merge of existing content, I'm assuming the content is not so much of a rewrite, but just a consolidation. I totally want to make this as easy as possible for the volunteers. John At SHS (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Creating a biography for a professor
Hello, I am interested in creating and publishing a biography for a university professor.

1. Is there a template or link to get started? 2. I see serveral services advertised to create a Wikipedia page - is this recommended or legit? 3. Is there a cost to post the biography on Wikipedia?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:8D04:4C00:B8CE:F3A2:8A17:590 (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * First, you should probably get an account. It opens up a ton of tools to reduce the difficulty of writing, and is the only way to create pages. Once you create an account, familiarize yourself with some of the ways wikipedia works. WP:TWA Is a good interactive tutorial. Then you should find a page similar to the one you want to make. Open up it's source and look at how it is formatted, maybe copy some elements such as templates. Then you want to go to your personal sandbox(you can get there from the buttons on the top of every page) and start writing. for your other questions:
 * 2. No, these are against Wikipedia's rules and in some cases, a scam.
 * 3. No, editing everything is free.
 * Be sure to follow the rules outlined in WP:BIO and Biographies_of_living_persons. Good Luck! WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, this was very helpful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:8D04:4C00:B8CE:F3A2:8A17:590 (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be especially useful to read Notability (academics), which sets out our criteria for accepting pages on academics (sometimes termed 'the professor test'). Nick Moyes (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * While I agree in general with what says, I would answer some of your points a bit differently.
 * It is true that only autoconfirmed accounts can create articles in mainspace, but I don't think this is very significant, because I would advise anybody against creating an article directly in mainspace, unless they are very sure they can get it up to scratch in one go. Instead, I would advise using the articles for creation process to create a draft, and you do not need an account to do that. Nevertheless, I would still advise you to create an account, mostly so that people can communicate with you easily.
 * Paid services are, unfortunately, not against Wikipedia's rules, provided they comply with the conditions on paid editing. But some of them are certainly scams, and if they represent to you that they can guarantee that a particular article will be accepted, or that it will have the content that you want, they are either ignorant or lying. My advice is not to waste your money.
 * As for templates: people often ask this question, and it seems to me to be based on the misunderstanding that the format of an article is the tricky bit to get right. The format is important, of course, but it is a superficial matter, easily corrected. The important bit, and the bit that makes writing a Wikipedia article much harder than most people expect, are the requirements 1) that everything in the article derive from reliable published sources, and most of it from sources unconnected with the subject, and 2) that the article be written from a neutral point of view according to how the independent sources view the subject, not according to how the subject or their associates view them. Besides your first article (which I am surprised WelpThatWorked didn't point you at) User:ian.thomson/Howto is a good potted guide. --ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I will add that "I am interested in creating and publishing a biography for a university professor" suggests this is a person you know personally, or perhaps are even being paid by. For first situation, see WP:COI, for second see WP:PAID. These dictate how to approach editing. And a reminder that once an article is created, any other editor can add content. I recently saw an article on a semi-famous high school football coach. The added content I doubt his friends and descendants appreciate was about an old arrest and conviction for soliciting a prostitute. David notMD (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Unreferenced section allowed?
Hello Teahouse hosts, this will be my third question on here now! I am very confused about how this section (Kravis Center for the Performing Arts) cites no sources yet nobody has put a Unreferenced template message there. Is it entirely possible that the editors of that page have not noticed this, or is there some Wikipedia policy that allows this to occur? None of the references/sources at the bottom of the page support the information in that section. — BladeRikWr  20:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The template for you to apply is Unreferenced section. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, but are you are telling me that the section is in violation of the Verifiability policy? — BladeRikWr  20:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Informally 'YFI-YFI' applies, meaning "You found it, you fix it." Either tag it as an unreferenced section (or if something smaller, cn for citation needed, or else find and add reference(s). David notMD (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the answer I was looking for. Thanks friend. — BladeRikWr  21:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is also More citations needed for tagging tops of articles with more than one section lacking. David notMD (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to delete an history page of a page?
Hi there, I wonder if there's a way to delete a history page of a page, for e.g., I edited a page, ok, then several people edited it too afterward. But people can always see my edited page version at the history, is there a way to delete such page version I edited so people don't see my version?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wraper11 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a way to do it, Revision deletion. There are only limited reasons it can be done, just because you don;t want people to see what you have done is not one of the reasons. ~ GB fan 21:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey there! I reviewed why you would might wanna delete someone else's revision (cause I snoop around contributions) but a rumor or controversy does not fall under the Criteria for redaction. Deleting your own history of an "edit war" does not follow under it either. One last thing! Sign all of your posts with " ~ " (with no quotes) at the end to show your name! YouGottaChill (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Where do I view my copyright strikes? :)
Where do I view my copyright strikes? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgbatty (talk • contribs) 22:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you asking about? Please clarify your question.  RudolfRed (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Somebody Copyright striked one of my pictures, which I agree wasn't fair use, it was from the internet. I'm just wondering the username of the person who filed the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgbatty (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . It looks like you uploaded a file to Wikimedia Commons which was subsequently deleted. A notification about the reason why the file was nominated for deletion was added to your Commons user talk page at c:User talk:Tgbatty. You find the name of the editor who nominated the file for deletion listed there. If you want to know the name of the Commons administrator who actually deleted the file, click on the file's name (it should now be a red link) and you should find the name of the deleting administrator as well as the reason for the file's deletion on the file's page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgbatty (talk • contribs) 00:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyrighted Content
Hello, if my article was not accepted because of copyrighted content, how do I know what content needs to change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllanQuartucci (talk • contribs) 21:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . From looking at Draft:EnGenius Technologies, Inc., it appears that some of the content you added was directly copied-and-pasted from an external website. Please look at Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more details, but basically copying-and-pasting large blocks of content verbatim from an external website, or even closely paraphrasing such content is not allowed per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The AfC reviewer who flagged the draft for being a copyright violation is . If you'd like to know the specifics of why some content was removed and deemed inappropriate, you can ask for details at User talk:StraussInTheHouse. You can also still see some older versions of the article (including ones with the content which was removed) in the page's history. Those versions, however, are likely going to be hidden from public view by the administrator cleaning up the draft; so, they may not be there for much longer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Welcome to the Teahouse. Put simply, all the content that was deleted (redacted) because of copyright concerns probably needs to be rewritten in your own words and put back in, providing it's neutral in tone and supported by citations to good sources. Whilst you may have written what was on the company's website, it's their copyright, not yours. You must use your own words and in pressing 'publish' you are then freely licencing that new content you wrote to be reused by others. So, take a look at Draft:EnGenius Technologies, Inc. to see what was deleted. Then read Notability (organizations and companies) to see what sorts of sources you'll need to find to support the claim of 'notability'. I think you should focus on the notability of your company itself rather than its products, though it's OK to list a few of the most noteworthy product ranges. Base these references on independent sources that have written about your company, not press releases and the company's own website. But I do have a question: Aren't or weren't EnGenius products once produced either by Senao Networks or Senao International, or is it coincidence they use the same name and logos on their products? The Wikipedia page for Engenius now links to Senao Networks. I'm rather confused over this, and by this Engenius page which indicates Engenius is Taiwanese, and that that EnGenius Technologies, Inc. is just the North American arm of a major Taiwan-based worldwide corporation. Looks a bit of a muddle to me in terms of what's notable enough to be written about here, but as you've declared your inside connections with the company, you're obviously in a good and senior position to understand it more than me. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I understand all of the copyright changes that are needed now. As far as Senao, they are the parent company, but do not have any presence in the Americas. EnGenius Technologies is all of North and South America, so we'll plan to remove "EnGenius" references from the Senao page as well. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllanQuartucci (talk • contribs) 22:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It's a great shame you haven't got an office here in England - I could have nipped round and tried to scrounge some wireless bridge equipment off you in return! (Only kidding - but I do need to get my peregrine falcon webcameras back on the internet again before they lay eggs!) Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I should add that I hope you were using a "Royal we", because here on Wikipedia there is a 'one person per user account policy' - multiple users editing from one single account is not permitted. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "royal" we, just me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllanQuartucci (talk • contribs) 00:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Catapult Ventures
Hello Editors! I am hoping to get help with this Draft:Catapult Ventures. I have disclosed a COI and am looking for someone else to take the lead... Thanks! Dliccardo (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Dliccardo
 * Hi, and welcome to the Wikipedia Teahouse. I see your first attempt at creating this article was rejected. The key think you need to do is find some really good, in-depth reliable articles that are not related to your company's promotional articles or press releases which show that the world has genuinely taken note of this company. Insider business journals are often insufficient. A NY Times article, on the other hand, might help greatly. Our guidelines are set out in Notability (organizations and companies), and by supplying those references you might get others interested in writing about it. You can request that other editors do that by creating an entry at Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies. But there is absolutely no guarantee of how quickly, if ever, an editor will think it is of interest to them. If it's not deemed 'notable' then the chances of having an article about it here is zero, I'm afraid. I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes. Why do you say / assume that those articles are "related to your company's promotional articles or press releases" ? That is simply not true. The very first published information (reference 1) on the company was discovered by Ari Levy (https://www.cnbc.com/ari-levy/) a well known CNBC reporter; he notes in that article that he found an SEC Form D filing on Catapult Ventures, which alerted him to its existence. The most recent TechCrunch article (reference 5) notes this company as a significant new fund consistent with TechCrunches "theory" about VC funds in 2019. Dliccardo (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Dliccardo
 * I say it because it is precisely what you must do, and is the best advice you can have. For "you" take it that I mean "everyone". Nick Moyes (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, . As a founder of this fund, you most definitely are a paid editor as Wikipedia defines that term, even though you deny this on your talk page. You must comply with WP:PAID. This is mandatory and non-negotiable. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I have clearly disclosed a COI, both here, and on the talk page of the draft article. The assumption of assumed bias has been very strong as exemplified by the false statements made about the sources of information above and in the comments on the draft article. As an editing group, you should consider a different tactic. You have a subjective get-out with every proposed article, which is "notability". You should stick with that and not make specific unsubstantiated claims about the independence of articles written in generally respected industry journals (in this case: TechCrunch, CNBC, VentureBeat, BusinessWire, PE Hub, and sUAS News). Dliccardo (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Dliccardo
 * User:Dliccardo - I tried to explain to you on my talk page that, as a partner in the company, you are paid if you receive a salary or dividends or share of the profits. Being hostile to neutral advice does not help.  When User:Nick Moyes said to find some in-depth reliable articles that are not related to your company's promotional articles or press releases, he did not necessarily mean that your sources were promotional.  But that sort of defensive attitude is another reason why Wikipedia requires that you make the paid editing declaration and one more way in which editors in the course of their employment are not neutral.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Dliccardo - No one has made "false statements" about your sources of information. Nick Moyes did not say whether your sources were or were not neutral.  Pause and reconsider whether you are coming across as having a defensive attitude.  If someone were reading the Teahouse looking to help a COI editor, your attitude would be likely to make them to decide to help a different COI editor than you.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

"The references are not independent." was your original comment Robert McClenon at Draft:Catapult Ventures. That was a bold assumption. I am sure you are right that the end result is that I am unlikely to get further help. Dliccardo (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Dliccardo
 * User:Dliccardo - On the one hand, it is possible that I may have made a mistake in saying that the sources are not independent. However, our concept of independent sources is stricter than you might think.  On the other hand, there is a difference between a reviewer making a mistake and a false statement.  I know that you don't believe that you make mistakes, but it is a mistake to try to read the minds of reviewers and to assert straightforwardly that they have made false statements.  I also know that life is surprisingly difficult for people who don't ever make mistakes.  I will restate my reminder that your attitude is likely to work against you in Wikipedia.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

"I know that you don't believe that you make mistakes" - Robert McClenon Wow. Another bold assumption and perhaps fair to classify as a Ad hominem personal attack? Robert, reading your response above, perhaps you are confusing intent with fact? A claim that a statement is false False statement has nothing to do with making a mistake. It's possible that you have made a mistake or it's possible that something else is going on or it's even possible that your independence claim is somehow true under a very different interpretation of independence. I am simply claiming that the statement that "The references are not independent." is untrue and is thus a False statement. I have tried to provide an argument above regarding the independence of those references to prove my assertion. Determining Identifying and using independent sources is indeed tricky and I was hoping to get some engagement on those specifics in this case. It seems I have failed to achieve engagement in this forum at a useful level of detail. Thank you for a reminder that attitude is an important part of any request of a volunteer. I would simply ask you to self-reflect on your own attitude and comments. As an editor/admin, I think you should be particularly careful in setting an example of how all users should behave on such a platform. Dliccardo (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Dliccardo

uploading a profile on wikipedia
Hey hello, I hope all is well at your end. My name is Zafar, i want to know that how can i upload someones profile on wikipedia. what is the procedure.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahmanzafar (talk • contribs) 05:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . I am sorry, but Wikipedia does not contain "profiles" like you can find on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Instagram. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of neutrally written articles about notable topics, not a social media site. Please read Your first article. We take those standards very seriously. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Editing
I am new to this. Can someone advise me on how to fix the info I tried to add on Janyse Jaud? I would appreciate that so much! I don't have the experience on how to do this properly. Thank you. Magic of Think (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Magic of ThinkMagic of Think (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * IMBd and Janyse Jaud's own website are not acceptable references, although a personal website can be used as a reference for basic biographical information such as age or marital status. Otherwise, either delete the content or find better references. Also, your User name appears to be same as a website/blog created by Janyse, and your 2016 post suggests you are her. WP:Autobiography is not recommended at Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

How to flag a something suspicious
Hya:

Sorry for what is probably a profoundly easy question to answer. I was just on a we page for the Palau International Airport. The airport's web address is listed as: romantmetuchlinternational.com, but it defaults to a private sector site https://lowcost.club/airports/ror/.

The site actually has some good information on it, but it's obviously kind of scammy. There does not appear to actually be a website for the airport itself.

What is the appropriate way for me to address this? (I've made changes in the past and sort of broke protocol - trying not to screw up again)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beldings (talk • contribs) 15:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello,, welcome back to Wikipedia, and to the Teahouse. The weblink you gave is in the Infobox, and was added in July 2017 by an editor adding what look like legitimate weblinks to a whole raft of airports. I suspect, as this is now a external redirect from one website to another, that the domain name has been purchased by a third party. Many of their other links are dead too, so someone could go through the lot and check them all if they wished to. Whether to leave it in or remove it is open to debate. On balance, as there clearly is no longer any dedicated website for this airport, I'd remove it and let users find ways to get there via their own online searches. I understand your reticence to make that change (though you needn't worry), I could do it for you, though why not remove it yourself with an edit summary akin to "removing website, per Teahouse discussion, which now only redirects to a holiday company." I'd wait a while a before doing that, lest others here would wish to offer a different opinion to mine. (BTW: You're free to remove the three year old block notices from your talk page now. You've clearly read them, so I don't think they need to stay up there forever, though they'll always be visible in your talk page history. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Slender man movie questions
The movie Slender man is a movie that leave people with many questions.One question that i have is that in the movie when Hallie was in the bathroom it showed her pregnant.My question is that why and how was Hallie pregnant.Another question is what happened when Katie is looking into the forest?How can slender man capture Katie in daylight?My last question is what happens to their families and parents?What happened to Chloe?What happens Hallie`s sister?Can someone answer my questions?Answer them in the chat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowwolf1100 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. The Teahouse is for asking questions about how to use Wikipedia.  You can ask your movie question at the Reference Desk, WP:RDE.  RudolfRed (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

pictures
how would i add a personal picture and data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adecl8 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

How to contact an administrator?
This is regarding an issue on a BLP in a which a user wants to change the variety of English used. There's an editnotice in place that has been on the article for 4 years, but the user has chosen to disregard it, even going as far as to change the editnotice itself. Who can be contacted about this so that they can get involved? Lupine453 (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you approached the user and asked them about it first? Before involving admins, that should be your first approach.  Leave a question on their talk page, see if you can work out your differences with them first.  -- Jayron 32 19:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Follow the guidance at WP:DR. RudolfRed (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see the comments made at Talk:Linda Evangelista. Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 19:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I am an administrator but I see no need for use of adminstrator's tools at this point. Linda Evangelista is a lifelong Canadian and therefore Canadian English should be used in the article, according to the section of the Manual of Style called Strong national ties to a topic. The Daily Mail should not be used as a source on Wikipedia, per WP:DAILYMAIL. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding a picture to an article
How do you add a picture to a article that I'm drafting?
 * See File Upload Wizard. Also, please do not put two headings asking the same question. Mstrojny (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello I'm new
Hi I just made an account after using wikipedia for 15 years. I'd love to be an editing contributor for "Weird Al" Yankovic, as I'm a huge fan, and follow him on social media. I know the page is protected against vandalism. So how can I be an editor for his page? Thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittiness88 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm glad you've decided to register an account and that you want to contribute. If you think an edit needs to be made to a page but you can't edit it because it is protected, go through the following steps:


 * Click the "view source" option which should appear at the toolbar near the top of the page.
 * Click the big blue button "Submit an edit request"
 * Type out the edit(s) you are requesting to be made to the page, following the instructions that appear above and inside the editing box.
 * Click "Show preview" to make sure your edit request looks formatted correctly and then click "Save changes".


 * However, it's not quite as simple as that. There are several things you need to remember when making edit requests. First of all, you must state what you want changed clearly and in an X to Y format. Also, for substantial changes that may be controversial, you should not make an edit request this way but rather post on the talk page following the instructions here and reach consensus for the suggested change to be made. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, all edits must be supported by a reliable source. Knowing a fact from personal experience or from an unreliable source, such as YouTube, is generally not a good enough method of verifiability to include the information in an article. Therefore, in any edit requests you make, you should provide a link to a reliable source supporting the material you are requesting to add or change.


 * I know I'm throwing a bunch of information out there, but that's really all you need to know for making edit requests. I hope this helps you out a bit and let me know if you have any questions!-- SkyGazer 512 <span style="background: linear-gradient(aqua, #d580ff);">Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Whoops, sorry, I messed up my mention of you! Repinging .-- SkyGazer 512 <span style="background: linear-gradient(aqua, #d580ff);">Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you make 9 more edits to other unprotected pages, you will be able to edit the article yourself. Ruslik_ Zero 05:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Auto-confirmed" (10+ edits, 4+ days) allows editing. David notMD (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

request for external editor
i kindly request for assistance of where i can find external editors who can help out in editing my biography so that it suits all the terms and conditions of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Beckham Mugimba (talk • contribs) 23:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It seems that you have been trying to do this for some time, and it must be frustrating.  I think that you have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not social media for people to tell the world about themselves.  Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability; for biographies that is written at WP:BIO.  Wikipedia has no interest in what an article subject wants to say about itself. Please read the guidelines on autobiographical edits written at WP:AUTO. If you can find appropriate sources(again, that are independent of you and have significant coverage of you), you can request that an article be written about you at Requested Articles,. though this may take some time to be done, if ever, as this is a volunteer project. 331dot (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Citations numbers in "published" edited version, not reflecting what is seen in edited, review, saved versions.
Rewrote and published intro section (top most) in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feline_panleukopenia. Citations started at "1" and went on. The final "published" version, however, starts the citations at 4, which is a repeat of 1. Today, deleted all, re-entered citations, same thing! AND, had to stop editing, would not let me "ReUse" a citation - not showing the list of ones in use (empty/blank field to select from). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samantha Michaels (talk • contribs) 00:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Currently, refererences 1 and 2 occur in the infobox and refererence 3 and 4 occur in the first paragraph. Refererences in infoboxes always preceed numerically the refererences in the body of the article. I am not sure what you mean by an empty/blank field, but if you are referring to the "References" section, refererences do not appear there in the wikicode. We use inline refererences and the ref codes appear at the place in the article right after the assertion they support. The software automatically displays them at the end of the article. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The info box self-generated (from a former template?). Was unaware of citation preference. (Very much in learning mode.) When I wanted to cite, and wanted to Re-Use, selecting it in the box ("Automatic. Manual. Re-Use") it would not show anything, so I was unable to re-select any of the already entered citations. It did work for previous citation "Re-Use" though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samantha Michaels (talk • contribs) 01:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

best cheetah picture ever
Hi ,

I have a picture of a cheetah wich is old(30 years), but soooo full of expression. How can i send it ? Greetings M.J. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2A80:2B80:F1FB:6930:572B:77D7 (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, IP editor. If you took the photo, then you are the copyright holder and you can freely license it as you see fit. In that case, I suggest that you do a high resolution scan of the photo. Then, go to Wikimedia Commons and open an account there (which you can also use here on Wikipedia). Use their upload wizard to add the scanned image to Commons. Your photo can then be used by anyone for any purpose.


 * If you did not take the photo yourself, then only the copyright holder can license it for free use on Wikipedia and elsewhere. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Bholekar Srihari
The person Bholekar Srihari expired in 2018. Please modify/remove sources template as deemed fit. Thanks - Jazze7 (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for pointing this out. I've edited the body of the article to reflect that he's deceased, removed the 'living person' sources template and done some copy-editing to make the article have a more-encyclopaedic tone. You could have done all this yourself, of course. Don't be afraid to make WP:BOLD changes to articles - if you make mistakes, others can always put things right. Neiltonks (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for nicely imroving the article. - Jazze7 (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)