Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 368

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 365

Archive 366

Archive 367

→

Editing Question

I tried to submit a draft but it was not approved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sjane214/sandbox

Before I re-submit it again, I want to make sure that it has been already reviewed by the editors at Teahouse and learn how to better edit this article myself. Sjane214 (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the content you added to the sandbox, because it was copied from several other sites. Such copyright violations are not permitted on Wikipedia. Please have a look at this page for information on creating your first article, and note that if you have a conflict of interest regarding the CHI (i.e. if you work for them) then you should not be creating an article on this subject at all. It is a bad idea to draft articles in the general Wikipedia sandbox, since (as per the message at the top of that page) it is regularly blanked by an automated script. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the response, I have found new words, phrases, and sentence structure so I am not copyrighting any website (I believe, please let me know if I am so I can fix it). How else can I improve this draft? Sjane214 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

There are at least two problems with the current article in your sandbox. First, it contains several external links to the organization's web site in the body of the article. External links are only permitted in the External Links section. If you wish to use information from the organization's web site in the body of the article, you must rewrite it in your own words, so that it is not a copyright violation or close paraphrase. Second, you do not provide secondary reliable sources indicating notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Extraneous information

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_and_Hugo on this page someone keeps adding stuff that I believe to be overly complex and unnecessary information. Some of it is true and interesting but some of it is just a massive rambling info dump. Could anyone have a look and see if I'm alone in thinking this? Not going to get into an edit war with a stranger! Granitoons (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The article reads more like a fansite or IMDB than an article in an encyclopedia. It needs some heavy editing (I have already removed the detailed, but completely unsourced and unnecessary, "Credits" section), the addition of some reliable sources and generally some TLC.--ukexpat (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

An IP user has just added refs in the form of links to a number of episodes on YouTube. Such videos would appear to be copyright violations.--ukexpat (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Formatting footnotes, references, & external links question

I am working on a draft for Amazingrace Coffeehouse. The article has Footnotes, References, and External links. Is it OK the way the auto-formatting made them come out, or do I need to re-format/revise to avoid duplication or any unintended confusion? Thank you for any suggestions. VerySeldom (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

A few points: Headings should not be in all caps. We use sentence case for headings - take a look at WP:MOSHEAD. You probably need a proper infobox in place of the current lead paragraph, maybe {{infobox restaurant}}? When you remove that text, you will need a proper lead paragraph, see WP:LAYOUT. All minor stuff, but important.--ukexpat (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Feedback & assistance requested on my first article

I just started the article and would appreciate feedback on what parts need to be iteratively fleshed out... this is linking together several related terms to coin a new phrase/concept: The Global Cascade

Muirhejs (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Muirhejs:. Note that Wikipedia specifically prohibits content where editors " linking together several related terms to coin a new phrase/concept" . Unless you are able to establish that reliably published third party sources have specifically discussed the subject of the article in a significant manner, the article will be deleted. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)

Hello @TheRedPenOfDoom:. I've updated the article referencing the reliable source who first used the term. Thank you for the feedback.

I also believe I have made a Credible claim of significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muirhejs (talk • contribs)

moving draft from sandbox

Hi, I am a new user. I created my first article about Walking Men Worldwide, which was approved and seems to be going in the right direction, however, I also tried to create a 2nd article about Maya Barkai (4 days ago) and I've had a problem moving it to the draft space since. I did submit it for review, and got this message on my sandbox - "Warning: This page should probably be moved, but a page already exists at Draft:Sandbox." The statues hasn't changes since, and since it is in a sandbox, it keeps getting cleaned, and I'm not sure how to proceed. Does anyone know how to continue?

Thanks in advance! Alonhadas (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alonhadas. It looks like you have been editing recently in Wikipedia's main sandbox, which is accessible to every Wikipedia editor, and is a place for short term experiments. That is not a good place to draft an article as it is emptied out regularly. Far better to work on your draft in your own sandbox or a draft page that you create specifically for this article in progress. You can recover your previous work by using the history tab at the main sandbox and access the version when you last worked there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Source problem

Hello :) I am writing my first article about a politician I know in real life. I found several articles and sources on the web and I have a problem here . My article is written in english (and if I can , it'll be translated in French and Arabic) but the sources I have are only in arabic, will it be a problem for the review ? Like I said, I know the person, how can I prove he gave me informations. Kushi-tolom (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Kushi-tolom: Welcome to the Teahouse! English sources are preferred, but if they're not available, reliable non-English sources may be used too. See WP:RSUE for more details. Since you are writing a biography on a living person, note that all information in the article should have a reliable published source to verify it.

Also note that, since you are close to the politician you wish to write about, you appear to have conflict of interest with the subject. You mention that the politician gave you the sources to use. Wikipedia articles are based on all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, so you should not be limiting yourself to certain sources that have been given to you. In addition, Wikipedia's sources need to be published - so internal documents that aren't accessibly in some way by the public shouldn't be used.

Since you appear to have a conflict of interest, you're encouraged to not directly create an article about your subject. I strongly encourage you to use the Article Wizard to create a draft. Once you have created a draft, you can submit it through the Articles for Creation process, which involves an experienced editor reviewing your draft and letting you know what needs improving (if anything). Remember to write your article based on what reliable sources have to say on your subject. You may also find this guide to your first article helpful. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Advice Regarding Draft

Here is a link to my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sjane214/sandbox

Please let me know how I can improve it! Sjane214 (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You need to cite professionally published, mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the subject but independent of it, and as many as possible. You've also got a bunch of overly close paraphrases in your draft of the CHI website and other sites you've linked to.

The article reads like an advertisement at the moment. Only stick to what other sources have discussed about them to decrease that vibe. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

help with submitting

I have submitted an article twice but it has been rejected, i do not know what changes I need to makeJulie kitchen99 (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

As was explained when the article was rejected, it does not meet our notability guidelines for articles on people, because it lacks references to verify anything in there]].

In other words, you need to cite some professionally published, mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of the subject but still specifically about it. Blogs, social media sites, or other self-published media are not acceptable sources. Please cite these sources using <ref>ref tags like this</ref>, providing at least the source's title, the author's name, the source's publisher, the date the source was published, and the specific pages cited. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Creating new article about the company I work for.

I work for a large natural gas pipeline company and have good citable information on the 100 year history and current operations of the company. I noticed we have no article, and given our size (one of the largest in North America), I found it surprising. My question is, am I allowed to create an article for my company? Or am I considered too close to the subject, being an employee? Thanks!Mountaineer ME (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mountaineer ME, and welcome to the Teahouse. As an employee, you have a clear conflict of interest, and are strongly discouraged from creating such an article, or even editing it directly (aside from removing blatant vandalism or correcting clear factual errors on no-controversial matters) should some other person create it. Please read WP:COI. If you wish to go ahead after that, you must declare your conflict of interest on your user page, or on the talk page of the article, or preferably both.

I strongly urge you, if you do go ahead to use the article wizard and the articles for creation process. Read the basics needed for an article and Your First Article. Be sure that you have the third-party independent sources needed to establish notability as specified in our guideline on corporate notability. Then write based only on what can be reliably sourced, avoiding all expressions of opinion or value, except what is contained in a sourced and attributed quote or paraphrase of a quote. All opnions must be attributed to a person or entity, not be presented in the editorial voice. DES ^(talk) 17:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I feel that I could draft something that is very neutral and then let outside sources check it to be sure. I will think about it. Thank you for the help. Mountaineer ME (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No, a neutral article starts with only outside sources. That you're having them check after the fact is a problem, along with your employment by the company. Articles require sources independent of the subject to exist at all. The most you should be involved in is making suggestions on the article's talk page, not in its creation, expansion, or eventual rewriting. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

my edit to the Joy (film) page is being rejected

I've made edits to the film page for JOY, but they are continuously rejected. Even when citing the film's official foxmovies.com page the edits I made are being removed. Is there something I am doing wrong? Would appreciate any feedback B4KD$$L (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @B4KD$$L:! Content from people directly related to the subject does not matter when establishing whether a subject meets Wikipedia's requirements for a stand alone article. What matters is that third parties with no connection to the subject of the article have found the subject worth covering in a significant manner. In addition, film projects have additional requirements .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@B4KD$$L: From your talk page, it appears that you were not "citing" but rather cut-and-paste copying. That is not allowed as it is a violation of copyright and would impinge on Wikipedia content being free for anyone else to use. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You said it perfectly for me, TRPoD. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 19:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding for circleofcricket

i want to verify my circleofcricket wiki page can u help me Tsdcorp (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears Draft:Circle of Cricket has been reviewed but it was rejected because it looks like an advertisement and contains non-neutral language. Wikipedia strives to maintain a neutral point of view and does not promote any company or business. Phrases like "COC is now putting its best possible efforts to highlight the roles and specialties of sports stars in front of the public" are not objective fact. If you have any affiliation with Circle of Cricket, please read our conflict of interest guidelines: it's usually best not to write about your own businesses, because it is hard to describe them without bias. If your company is notable, someone else may create an article for it. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm also pretty sure this organisation isn't notable enough for an article- I've never heard of them, if they were a notable cricket website then it's pretty certain I would have done. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Help!

I feel that a user on Wikipedia is bullying and demeaning me, and this has been going on for a really long time. Where should I go for help? YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, YoSoyUnHamster. The place is WP:ANI. But, you should be discussing it with the person first. I see only two edits to a user talk page in your contribution history, both to User Talk:RHaworth#Hey, It's Me Again. FWIW, I do not see any bullying or demeaning - I see Largoplazo and RHaworth trying to get you to do the only thing that we do here - build an encyclopaedia - rather than apparently trying to do something that we don't do here - social networking. --ColinFine (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, ColinFine. I think that they need to be a little nicer. I am not trying to turn Wikipedia into a social network, but I really just think that these two admins could be a little nicer and more understanding of newer users. I honestly have been thinking about leaving Wikipedia for quite some time, and if people don't quit acting like this towards me rather than trying to guide me, I will. Sound good? YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

YoSoyUnHamster, if you stay here and help us improve the encyclopaedia, that sounds very good. If you decide that Wikipedia is not for you, and leave, that sounds good too. It's up to you. --ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Trafficking in Person Report TIER 3

According to latest US Trafficking in Person Report Thailand stands on level "Tier 3" during 2014 and 2015 (lowest possible ranking). According to you Wikipedia and related statistic list of rankings, Thailand stands on level Tier 2? Please, kindly make needed proper, corrections.91.158.24.214 (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Br, Turkka91.158.24.214 (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Br, Turkka. If you have an improvement to offer to one of our four million articles, especially if you have a reliable published source for the information, you are very welcome to edit the article. Alternatively, if you are not confident in doing so, the article's Talk page is the best place to suggest a change., --ColinFine (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

prodwarningBLP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Murphy_(artist)

Hello! I received a warning regarding adding references before I had the chance to do so. I added a few now, and I was wondering if I was able to delete the notification template right now. Thank you! 184.75.102.250 (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think you should. It is possible that the third reference Portraits of a Town might qualify as an independent source, but it reads very much as if it comes out of an interview with Murphy; the John Patten article is certainly an interview. Interviews with the subject of an article are regarded as primary sources: they can be used to support uncontroversial factual information, and the fact that the subject says something about themselves, but are not regarded as reliable sources for anything else. You need to find some places where people who have no connection with Murphy or the Academy have written about Murphy, and had their writing published in reliable places. If there is no such writing, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article about him at present, and you should not try (the Wikipedia word for this is that he is not notable). --ColinFine (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Re-ordering the contents of a page?

I want to re-order the sections to keep technical together, and non-technical with... and move a section up to make it the intro.Xo-whiplock (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Xo-whiplock:. The Table of Contents generates itself. You would need to edit the page and then move the sections (identified by their headings marked with ==Section title== ) into the order you want. If this is your first major restructuring of an article, I suggest you copy the entire article to your sandbox and play around till you get it right, then copy it back to the actual article page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I'll check out the sandbox. Yes, first ever. :)Xo-whiplock (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Edits

Hi, I found in the Edit Count that one of the edit I did has been deleted. I don't know where to find the same. I want to know what happened or where did I go wrong ? Thanks! Peppy Paneer (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Peppy Paneer:, it was a minor edit you made to an article called Ashraf Abu Issa. The article was subsequently deleted which includes your edit so that's why you have a deleted edit in your count. Deleted edits are nothing to worry about. Nthep (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nthep:, Oh yes! I remember...few days back removed one of the references from the article Ashraf Abu Issa because it was not supporting the statement and put ^{[citation needed]} tag with that statement. Its ok...no worry...I was looking to see if I made a wrong edit. Thank you Peppy Paneer (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Peppy Paneer. If an edit you make is undone by somebody, or the text is later changed, it will still show in your contributions and the history of the page you edited. Deleted edits are either edits you made to pages which have subsequently been deleted, or (I think) edits that have been oversighted for some reason. --ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

ColinFine Ok Thank you for further clarification. And if any user has 27(lets say) deleted edits, then can user view all the deleted edits at one place ? Peppy Paneer (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Peppy Paneer, only administrators can see a users deleted contributions. Nthep (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nthep: Ok

Thank you Peppy Paneer (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Making many edits to an article in a short period

Is it considered bad etiquette to make many small edits to an article and saving them, instead of doing all the edits at once? I may have made a mistake here (look at the history): Daxophone MDaxo (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@MDaxo: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would say that some editors care, but they are a small minority. Lots of long time editors and admins use that style of editing so I wouldn't worry about it. Feel free to edit in whatever style you would like. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is just my opinion, but while it can be a tiny bit annoying for other users, there's nothing wrong with doing things in small chunks if you prefer to do things that way. I can still see the entirety of your changes here. Maybe it's better to save your progress as you go so you don't lose anything; maybe you suddenly notice another problem after clicking submit; maybe you make a small mistake in your original edit. There's no rule against editing a page multiple times in a row but if you can try to stick to as few edits as possible, that's probably best. That way, you don't clog up the edit history too much or constantly notify people with the page on their watchlist. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I always save work in progress. I am interested in the overall end result, not really what others consider to be good or bad etiquette. Whatever works for each editor is fine. We have more rules and guidelines than would sink a battleship. Lets; not add to them. Fiddle Faddle 22:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I generally edit in small chunks dealign with one small isue at a time, then saving and moving on. OI think it makes the purpose of each edit clearer in some case, and lets changes be separately undone if someone objects, but mostly it is easier for me, and the end result should be the same. If anything I prefer that style by others as well, but each editor must work in whatever way he or she chooses, within very broad limits. Now making many edits within a very short time to many different articles with an automated or semi-automated tool can be dubious, depending on the nature of the edits. DES ^(talk) 23:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I, too, often make a lot of small edits, explaining each in an edit summary as I go along. If anything, I believe that is a more transparent, open style of editing than making more sweeping changes in one or two edits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Good thing about editing in small chunks is that it will increase your edit count and other people will think that you are an experienced user by seeing your edit count. But I prefer to edit at once if possible, at least you can edit one section at once. If you do sectionwise multiple edits then its fine. But if you are keep on editing same section multiple times then still its not bad etiquette. When I was new I used to do multiple edits, but now I preview my edits and try to execute things in minimum edits. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 02:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I speak only for myself, Human3015, but my my edit count is the furthest thing from my mind when I am working on expanding and improving an article. Improving the encyclopedia comes first in my mind, and making the intention and purpose of my edits clear to other editors is always important as well. Edit count? Who cares? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Frankly speaking my comment was not for you, I have not even read all above comments carefully, I just commented here on lighter note when I saw this thread. My comment was for Mdaxo. Why I would criticize any of above editor? Me too don't care edit count but for new user it maybe useful for getting some "special permissions(rollback, pcr)" as it requires some 200/500 odd edits in mainspace. etc. I or anyone other can have different POV regarding small edits, it should be welcomed. It is not good to take on each other in front of new users on teahouse. Cheers. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 07:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing Article

Hi Teahouse, I want to edit another users article to improve grammar and spelling, would like to know how I go about doing this.Dominoooo's (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dominoooo's, welcome aboard. First things first - no-one owns articles on Wikipedia, so try not to think of it as "another user's article". You have as much right to make changes to it as anyone else. (The only arguable exception to this is if it's still in their userspace, in which case it would be polite to ask before editing). To edit an article, click on the "edit" tab at the top - this opens the page in editing mode so that you can make changes. Have a look at the tutorial for the basic process. Best of luck! Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

But please note that what may seem like spelling and grammar mistakes to you, may actually be correct in another variety of English:- US, UK, Australian, Canadian, Jamaican, Indian etc. Please see WP:ENGVAR for how the variety of English in each article is determined, and the (extremely) limited circumstances in which this should be changed. - Arjayay (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Advice on draft

I'm currently working on this draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:International_Academy_of_Electrochemical_Energy_Science This has been rejected a few times, even after I added some external references.

Please pardon my ignorance, but may someone please list some suggestions on how I may improve on it. I would also greatly appreciate anyone willing to invest some time to help improve it directly~ :) Would adding a section: giving a short blurb (a sentence or 2) on the founders with external references add to the credibility?

Thank youSerubbabel (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

What it needs most is references to reliable independent sources, to establish that it is notable. I don't think it has any at present. Some of the current references are to its own material, and therefore not independent; and some are independent, but only establish that it exists, not that it is worthy of mention. Maproom (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

How can I retrieve the deleted article?

I am trying to create the first article on an organization - Financial Software & Systems (FSS). However after multiple rejections, the page was deleted under "speedy deletions" rule since it was termed as an ambiguous advertising. However, now I would like to fundamentally rewrite the entire article based on wiki's guidelines. I need your help and guidance in retrieving the deleted article.

Article name: Financial Software & Systems (FSS)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsstech91 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Fsstech91. You can request the article to be undeleted at WP:UNDEL. However, if it was deleted as advertising, I doubt that there's very much there that is worth retrieving: it will probably require a complete rewrite from scratch. I note that your username suggests that you are part of the organisation: if so, please read Conflict of interest to discover why you are strongly discouraged from writing about it at all. If you decide to go ahead, you must declare your conflict of interest, and then I strongly advise you to use the articles for creation process, to get your draft reviewed before it is accepted. You would also be well-advised to assemble some reliable sources where people who have no connection with the organisation have written about it, forget absolutely everything you know about it, and write your draft entirely from what those unconnected people have written. --ColinFine (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

How to remove "see tfm" link

In almost every educational institute (college, university) I have came across here, there is this little "see tfm" link beside the "colors" option in the infobox. Why it is there and how to remove it?

Rami.shareef (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Rami.shareef: Welcome to the Teahouse! You're seeing that link because the template (Template:Color box) is undergoing a deletion discussion. You can view the discussion here. When a template is under discussion, the "see tfm" link is added so that anyone who comes across the template will know that a deletion discussion is going on, and so that they can contribute if they wish. These discussions typically last 7 days, after which consensus is determined; once that happens, the template will either be deleted or kept. Either way, you'll see the "see tfm" link removed then. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @SuperHamster: Rami.shareef (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Date Vandalism

I've seen many cases of date vandalism. However, to check that this is vandalism one needs to search the event/person related to the date- but what sources of information is to be trusted? I've seen even official news sites having conflicting records before. Thanks in advance, Dakar (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Dakarias, If there are conflicting reliable sources we should say so. Changing a date to match a reliable source may be incorrect if other sources disagree, but it isn't vandalism. Changing a date to something no reliable source supports may well be vandalism. It isn't easy to be sure in such cases, sometimes. Check the sources cited in the article before the change, if any were, first, would be my advice. DES ^(talk) 13:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Dakarias. If there is a serious question as to the pre-existing date, a conflict between sources, then treat that as its own issue and note that you can even do something like was done with the date of birth in Hadji Ali (see the date form in the first sentence and click on the note at the end). If, however, a date that is sourced within the article is simply changed without a replacement source and its not clearly just vandalism, refer to the section of the verifiability policy known by the shortcut WP:BURDEN – revert and I suggest leaving an edit summary something like Revert unsourced change in date. [[WP:BURDEN]] controls. Do not add back without citing a reliable source using an inline citation, and even then we need to work out issue btw conflicting sources. If there does not appear to be any reliable source for the date and it has been challenged, then it should be removed entirely, also under WP:BURDEN. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for the helpful replies! Dakar (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Query regarding deletion

Raghav Sood is the article I am referring to. I wanted to ask how can I list the article for deletion. I think it failes Speedy Deletion Criteria and any deletion discussion would be better. You can create the discussion it's fine. Durgamahajan (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Durgamahajan, This needs work, but not, i think, deletion. See my post on the article talk page. DES ^(talk) 13:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

DES, I do agree that CNBC is a reliable source. But the point of debate is that what the reliable sources write and what's written in article are different. Durgamahajan (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Usually, if the topic could support an article, but the current article is bad, a rewrite is considered better than deletion. Exceptions of course are copyright infringement and anything slandering a living person. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Copy and paste of copyrighted text

Hi, I found text in an article that has just been copied and pasted from several websites. After reading the guidelines at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, I removed all the instances of copied text, added a copyright notice for each instance I removed, notified the user and added the page to the copyright problem list. How will the notices be removed? What to do if the user continues lifting copyrighted material? The article in question is Gatwick_Express. Thank you. Widy9 (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You have done everything correctly. You should consider leaving a talk page message for the user who added the copyvio material explaining why it has been removed and asking that they not readd it. If they persist, it is a serious matter and grounds for a block.--ukexpat (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Widy9 has already left talk page messages. @Widy9: there's nothing more you need to do; the user will hopefully see the messages and avoid making the same mistake in the future. If the user continues, try leaving a personalised message on their talk page, trying to engage them in discussion or, as a last resort, post on a relevant noticeboard (I think WP:ANI would be the right choice here although I'm not too experienced in these areas). But hopefully the user will just stop. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Article speedy delete

Hello :) I am a Video Director and editor. I watch wikipedia page of gippy grewal (Punjab singer) but there is no any page of director who create them and their status in public. I am a video Director and i create enough videos. But when i create an article on myself it delete again and again. I want to know how to edit an article on myself. Sourav08saini (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Do not create articles on yourself or anything you're involved in. See WP:NOTPROMO and WP:COI. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

okay, thanks... can i create an article on other senior directors in Punjabi music industry.All i know about them. even they have public identit and status.Sourav08saini (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia only summarizes professionally published, mainstream academic or journalistic sources which are independent of the subject but still specifically about the subject. It does not rely on user knowledge. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

How do I proceed after an article has been deleted?

How do I proceed after an article has been deleted because of copyright issues? I had created an entry about a American political activist named Paul Stanford, and the article was deleted because of copyright violations. Some of the text I used for the Wiki entry was copied off the subject's own LinkedIn profile, with the subject's full permission to use anything I needed. After the article I wrote was deleted I proceeded to get the subject to send a creative commons permission into Wiki, which he immediately did. He also requested that the article gets undeleted. As far as I know he hasn't heard anything back and I think that was about a month ago.

I have decided to try this process again, although I am frustrated I do understand that Wiki needs to be very careful about copyright issues. I re-created the article and rewrote all the text so as not to violate any copyright issues, even though Wiki should now have permission (and I have it as well) to use text from the subject's LinkedIn profile.

Is this the right way to proceed? I don't think I'm violating any copyright issues at this point. Is there someone else I need to contact about this, or should I just wait in line to see if the article gets approved?

Also, I noticed there is no submission box at the bottom like there was before that tells you approximately how long it will take to get the submission reviewed. Am I missing a line of text or code that should be at the beginning or end of the article that would submit it for approval? Maybe this is because the first article I wrote with the same name was deleted. Not sure if the re-write I just did has been formally submitted for approval.

Here is a link to the newly rewritten article;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Paul_Stanford

Any help and advice is appreciated.

Thank you!

Sacredcocreation (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Sacredcocreation! I'm sorry to see that your draft has been deleted once. Unfortunately, I don't see where the Creative Commons license is (it appears to be copied off [1] as far as I can tell, which has a copyright symbol on it). Even though he's given explicit permission for it to be used on Wikipedia, this isn't enough; since all our content is freely usable (i.e. CC-BY-SA 3.0), we can't have material around here that isn't, and since the site's content appears to be copyrighted, we can't accept it. I suggest you have your subject look at WP:DONATETEXT, and have him follow one of the two methods there: either put a CC-BY-SA license on it (or freer, but not stricter; we can't take the NC or ND clauses), or privately contact Wikipedia at the given e-mail address and follow the instructions. Gparyani (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sacredcocreation. Here is my personal opinion: It is a big mistake to try to use the text of a LinkedIn profile in a Wikipedia article, even if copyright issues have been resolved. A LinkedIn profile is not independent, not reliable, and is inherently promotional. It has no professional editorial supervision. A Wikipedia biography should summarize, in neutral language, what reliable, independent sources say about the person. A LinkedIn profile is of very limited use when writing such a biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I am only using key pieces of information gleaned from the subject's LinkedIn profile (like he was in the military) and his website. I have listed a ton of newspaper articles written about the subject and cited them as sources for most of the information on the article itself. In regards to facts like the subject being in the military, is it required that this type of information be taken from independent news sources as opposed to another source like a LinkedIn profile? Should I just remove this type of fact since I can't find a newspaper story that mentions the subject being in the military? I'm not trying to copy text from his LinkedIn profile or website, as much as I'm trying to use the relevant factual information from those sources that will help create a Wiki page. If you read the Wiki page I'm trying to create I don't think it is promotional as much as it is factual. I know that sometimes this isn't a clear, bright line, but in this case I think the Wiki page I am trying to create serves the purpose to be factual and not promotional.

The issue seems to be that I am violating copyright issues even though I have full permission from the copyright holder (he has submitted a permission to Wiki that I am allowed to use text from his LinkedIn profile and website) to use this content. I don't think there is an issue about the article I'm creating being promotional. If there is an issue with this then this is the first time I've heard about it.

I'm trying to resolve copyright issues. I seem to be going around in circles with this. Since I have formal permission to use information from the copyright holder himself I don't understand why this continues to be a problem.

Thank you for any help you can give.

Sacredcocreation (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sacredcocreation. I know that it is hard to write your first Wikipedia biography, and I hope that frank comments by an experienced editor will be useful. When you call the subject a "Canna-businessman" in the first sentence, you have begun the article promotionally. That is a strange promotional neologism which is not appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia article. The draft article has a promotional tone, in my sincere opinion, and includes many unreferenced assertions and evaluations. Every one must be cited to a reliable source or removed. A biography such as this should include nothing of substance that isn't backed up by a reliable, independent source. The military service details do not belong in the lead, in my opinion. The lead should summarize the most important parts of the article. He is not notable for military service, as far as I know. The copyright problem was a result of extensive quoting of his LinkedIn profile, which is inappropriate in any case and in any biography. So don't copy text from the LinkedIn profile (or anywhere else) and all copyright problems disappear. Getting permission for inappropriate copyrighted content is not necessary, as it will not be included in the encyclopedia anyway. I suggest a major rewrite and trimming, removing every trace of promotional or unreferenced content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You appear to be misunderstanding the copyright position - copyright is complex, but to put it very simply:-
It is not you that needs the permission - the permission has to be for anybody to use the information for any purpose whatsoever, including making a profit and altering the information for their own purposes. I think people need to understand what releasing information on a CC-BY-SA license means and consider it carefully before issuing it.
As stated above, the text of someone's Linked-in page is highly unlikely to be the neutral point of view that we require, and furthermore, this is not a reliable, independent source. The easiest thing would be to ignore the Linked-In page and just use the information from reliable third party sources. - Arjayay (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your suggestions. I'm trying to understand the path towards success, and it's subtle which makes it difficult. Plus I don't really have experience with these types of copyright issues.

Should I just remove everything from the article that's not backed up by a news source? Is this the path forward? Can I just keep trying to create the article on the same page until I get it right? I don't want to keep wasting my time or anyone else's. I should be able to trim the article down to only include things which have originally been reported from news sources. I'll give that a try.

Sacredcocreation (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've gone through and done some major revisions to the article and removed everything that wasn't verified by an external news source. I think the article reads alot better now.

Can someone please take a look at this current revision and let me know if there are anymore copyright issues or anything else that needs to be addressed? I'd really appreciate it. Thank you all for your time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Paul_Stanford

Sacredcocreation (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

My Article declined

Hi Team,

I am trying to submit the article about Insync, but after so many edits, I am still unable to pass it to mainstream. The article is at Draft:Insync

Can you help me on this regard please.

Abhi2434 (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

some subjects simply are not capable of "passing to the mainstream" if they have not been covered in a significant manner by third party reliable sources. Most of the "sources" appear to be PR regurgitation sites or merely business directory listings. You want to find actual content about the company written by somebody not involved with the company. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Declined Article: Revision Suggestions

I have submitted an article for creation that was declined... please see link below for details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Roger_Allen_Kotoske I have taken care to write in a neutral point of view while focusing on key points that give credibility to the artist I am writing about. Before submitting the article I have read many wikipedia pages on artists from a similar era and genre of work and have made every effort to use a similar format to those examples. I have also included 12 references from online and printed sources. I would very much appreciate feedback on what can be done to improve the article so that I can resubmit with better chances of acceptance. Thank you for your time and assistance.TKTSFTKTSF (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@TKTSF: claims like "pushed the boundaries" need to go or be attributed to a notable critic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Data Removal and city/town template questions

My tiny contribution revolves around my hometown article. Information was posted by me from a resource citing crime stats and likelihood of crime. Someone edited that and added their own arbitrary stats that differed. Both are from sketchy sources so I didn't protest.

I have since added statistics from the FBI NCR and left the new sketchy stats. Am I right in removing these new sketchy stats given the FBI says not to use them in that manner as they can be twisted many different ways to skew the results?

Also, is there a good template to use for adding and organizing town/city information? I have been adhering to the setup of St. Louis since it is the closest fairly major city. Thanks for what you all do. Dirtvoyles (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Different organisations collect crime figures for different reasons, and from different sources, and categorise them in different ways. I have seen work in "respected" journals misuse these figures, so you are right they can be tricky. Some of them also need interpretation, for example, 17th worst means nothing unless you know out of how many. I don't know where the figures from USA.com come from, so making a judgements is tricky.
{{Geobox|Settlement}} is a perfectly good template as far as I know, but most places use {{Infobox settlement}}.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC).

Editing an article with two titles

I recently edited Richland Creek Reservoir. It turns out someone created this article under the title Richmond Creek Reservoir and realised that was a wrong title. I read somewhere that copy pasting an article to a new one and blanking the old one is the wrong way to rename it. I hope I haven't done anything wrong by editing one of the two versions. Should I now try to make the same change to the other article or would that just make it worse? Pretended leer (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The thing to do is tag the two articles for "mergeing". Let me take a look. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC).

OK I have redirected the wrong title to the right one (presumably this is a mistake that could easily be made by someone else, the redirect will land them in the right place). The original author had made a copy-paste move, but in this case it's not a problem: since no one else had (significantly) edited the old article, there is only the original author's attribution to worry about, and that is given by the first edit of the new article we are good to go. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC).

Thanks! Pretended leer (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

English translation/version of the wiki languages sidebar

Is there a setting to view the languages sidebar in English? The heading is in English and the languages are written in their local alphabet. I can scroll over the languages to see the English equivalent, but I would rather just see that directly. It would also allow searching by "control-F." Thanks.Lucas559 (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lucas559, welcome to the Teahouse. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets has the option "SidebarTranslate, changes the language links in the sidebar so their text is displayed in English". PrimeHunter (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

thanks PrimeHunter that is exactly what I was looking for. (And such quick service!) Lucas559 (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

citation needed

I am currently editing an article and it is saying that a citation is needed, please could you tell me if there is anywhere that I could check this out without using google. ie... somewhere on Wikipedia.Dominoooo's (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dominoooo's, you cannot cite any information from Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

However, Dominoooo's, if you can find a relevant article already in Wikipedia, it is possible that that article will already have citations that are appropriate to what you are writing. I wish I could say that it will have, but there are many, many, substandard articles in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Memphis Depay

Now that Depay plays for Manchester United should the picture in the infobox be of him in a United shirt? (there is one in the article I could use) Or is it best to leave it as it is? TeaLover1996 (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The lead photo should generally represent the subject as current (unless there is an image that is iconic relative to their notability). So a free use photo of Depay in his current Manchester United jersey would generally be most appropriate for the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

But image quality is also a factor. I don't think File:Memphis Depay - July 2015c.jpg is well suited to an infobox and I doubt it's a normal expression for him. File:Depay PSV 2011.jpg isn't optimal either but better. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

JPG Uploads

I'd like to be able to upload music album covers/artwork.Shadowarchitect (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Shadowarchitect:, your account has to be 4 days old and have more that 10 edits to it before you gain the autoconfirmed right to upload images. You have the edits but your account was only created today, so you'll have to be patient and wait another three days. Nthep (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Shadowarchitect. As album covers are almost universally copyrighted, their usage on Wikipedia must be limited, in most cases restricted only to the article about the album in question. The image must be low resolution, and uploaded here on English Wikipedia. Wikimedia Commons accepts only freely licensed or copyright free images. Please read our guideline about use of non-free images. Item #1 applies to your question. Once you are autoconfirmed, you can proceed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Tracking....should have read up on a few of the specifics before asking a basic question, so thanks for the replies.Shadowarchitect (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Shadowarchitect. The purpose of the Teahouse is to assist less experienced editors by answering any good faith questions about editing this encyclopedia. Feel entirely free to ask such questions at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

In the edit section it say encyclopedic information must be verifiable, now easy to do if using Wikipedia online, but how is information placed in book encyclopedia's verified, is it by the publisher? and what if information changes? Any help appreciated in this matter. Thank You TeaLover1996 (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @TeaLover1996: - while free, online, reliable sources are preferred, any reliably published source can be used, even if not free or not online. It just needs the appropriate information in the citation so that the source can be properly identified.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello TeaLover1996. If I understand your question properly, you are asking about the editorial processes of printed encyclopedias that predate Wikipedia. The publishers of high quality printed encyclopedias like Encyclopaedia Brittanica had respected editorial staffs and retained academic experts to write their articles. Many such encyclopedias published an "annual", a supplementary volume each year that updated the reference work. Of course, not everything called an "encyclopedia" had such high standards. If you have a question about the reliability of a lesser known printed encyclopedia, I suggest discussing the matter at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Found an External link that says something but actually links to a completely different thing. What to do?

Hello - I found a few external links stating that they link to a certain website and the URL is correct in the code, however when you click on the link it sends you to a completely different page. What do you do in this case? I assume you would flag the link and report it? But I am not sure how to do that! Can you please let me know the steps that should be taken to take care of this or lead me to an article that deals with how to approach this!

Thank you in advance! Kingoptimizer (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kingoptimizer: Welcome back! I suppose it depends on the situation. I'm guessing the URL is set to redirect to another domain. Perhaps the domain expired and someone else snatched it, or the website is simply old and gone. If the page you end up on is irrelevant, spammy, or otherwise inappropriate, then I'd just remove the link entirely. If you're still not sure and don't want to post the link here, feel free to email it to me and I can take a look. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that sometimes people refer to "external links" as just meaning URLs appearing anywhere, and not in the jargon we use, where we make a clear distinction between URLs used in footnoted citations, versus URLs used in an external links section, which is what we normally mean when we say "external links" (see Wikipedia:External links. The distinction is important because we properly are much more concerned and in general are willing to expend much more resources to fix links included those found to be dead in citations (rather than just removing them), than those appearing in external links sections.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @SuperHamster:. I can email you the page I am referring to and you let me know what you think. I will also email you what I think is happening there. @Fuhghettaboutit: I appreciate the explanation, but I am well aware of the difference between the two and I really meant an external link (as in a link that is placed in the external links section) :-). Hopefully SuperHamster will be able to help and let me know how to deal with this sort of issues moving forward. Thank you both for your reply!! Kingoptimizer (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Declined Article

Hi experiences editors, I have submitted my first article for review and his been declined twice. Can someone please help me publish the article?

Please find the link for the article below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Innovation_4_Impact_Competition

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IFG (talk • contribs) 07:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi IFG
Can you show that the subject has received significant coverage, in reliable sources, that are independent of the topic - if so, you must cite these in the article.
If not, you should read "No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability", to understand why your article will not be accepted.
It may be that the subject will become notable in the future, but it is currently too soon to have an article, as there is no significant coverage to meet our notability criteria. - Arjayay (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Advice on first article

Hi there,

I have submitted my first article for review and his been declined twice for :- "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations."

However, I am unsure as to what the problem is and thought that I had done this. Would someone be able to point in the right direction and explain what I have done wrong? Many thanks.

The article is at :- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Professor_Nicholas_J_Lowe

Many thanks Tim Tim B Haigh (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome. It's important that medical claims are sourced. We have a rather more onerous requirement here, the details are at WP:MEDRS. It's also good to source any claims such as "he was the first..."

The reviewing editor will generally happy to explain what their specific concerns are, if you reproach them on their talk page,

Hope that helps. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC).

Although approaching them first before reproaching them is likely to improve response quality ;p --Elmidae (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what's wrong within this article's format (below)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:D%27ORA 86.13.120.89 (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I've cleaned up some of the formatting for you with these edits. There were a couple of problems you were having:

Firstly, section headings are written using equals signs. An article has a lead, with no heading, and then a "level 2" heading, with two equals signs on either side, like this: == Section title ==. If you want a subheading within that section, you can use more equals signs (e.g. with the "Music" and "Release" sections in that draft).
The table of contents is created automatically if you do this; you don't need to write one yourself.
The <ref></ref> tags are only used for "inline citations" (small references above a certain piece of text like this: ^[1]).
In the lead, there was a '''Bold text''' and a ''Italic text''. These were presumably accidents created using the toolbar at the top of the edit menu.
The categories are written in an article like this: [[Category:Category name]]. But because your article is still a draft, we don't include the categories yet. I've changed them to things like [[:Category:Category name]], which just links to the category instead of including the page in it. Don't worry about this too much. They can be changed to normal categories if the draft becomes an article.

There is still a big problem with the draft, though: phrases like "This is a highly story-led awareness film, driven by a strong female character" and "An honest, compelling feature film" are opinion. Wikipedia must be neutral; it's not an objective fact that the film is compelling, for instance, so we can't say that. If you find a review of the film that says this, you can write "Person X from Reliable Source 1 said that the film was "description"." or something similar. But you can't put your own opinion into the article. I've not read the entirety of the draft so there may be other issues remaining as well. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)