Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 362

Archive 355

←

Archive 360

Archive 361

Archive 362

Archive 363

Archive 364

Archive 365

Unable to resubmit the article I created

Hi, I made some changes suggested by John on the Evans Waterless Coolant article, but I think I totally messed up the article. Can someone please review it and tell me how to fix it and resubmit it? Thank you. Emilia12 (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at referencing for beginners for help with reference formatting. In meantime, I have made a few other formatting fixes. I do need to ask whether you are connected with the company and have been asked to create this article. If so, you are required to declare your conflict of interest, preferably on your user page.--ukexpat (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

So how does all this work with Wikiprojects? To add yourself to one is really all you have to do is put your name on the member lists? How do you connect with other members of the project? How do you contribute? If someone could help me with these and any other basics I need to know that would be great. Thanks 1517today (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @1517today. Yep — all you have to do to join a Wikiproject is put your name on the relevant list. There's no official way to contribute; some projects have "To do" lists (e.g. Wikiproject Television), but others don't. All Wikiprojects do have lists and categories of articles by quality (e.g. Category:Biology articles by quality), so you could pick a stub at random and see if you can expand it. Or you could find a category that lists articles with a specific problem (e.g. Category:Unreferenced album articles) and try to fix that problem. Each Wikiproject will have a talk page (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games) if you need any help. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you really even "connect" with the others in a Wikiproject? Or does everyone just kind of do their own thing, and connect via the talk page like anywhere else? 1517today (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Depends on the project. Some like WP:MILHIST have very active collaboration on the project talk page, others not so much.--ukexpat (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

References and links suddenly disappeared

Having spend the entire day carefully entering reliable references to the article and adding links to such reliable sources as Wikipedia itself, then saving the page (at every stage) then checking the Preview page, then refreshing the page and seeing that all references and links were visible for a number of hours - suddenly (after Wikipedia have made changes to the date of birth relating to the article)all references and links have totally disappeared! Would you know why? and more importantly how to get them back without my having to start all over again? Thank you. Stephaniersvpr (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll start with a quick comment about references: "links to such reliable sources as Wikipedia itself" is a bit mistaken. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and there's no guarantee that it won't contain incorrect information, so it's not considered a reliable source. If there's a part of a Wikipedia article that's relevant to what you are writing, look at the inline citations it has (or references at the bottom of the page); you can cite them, rather than the WP article itself.

I'm not quite sure where you've gone wrong, but it doesn't appear that you saved the page. I can't find any references to sources in your saved contributions to the page, which can be seen in the page history. But if you can see the "Preview page", then you're still in editing mode. When you click the Show preview button on the edit page, it says at the top "This is only a preview; your changes have not yet been saved!" You need to click the Save page button and make sure the "Your edit was saved" message appears at the top of the page for your changes to be seen. To double check (especially if you've made substantial changes that took a while), you could open a new tab and visit the page to make sure your edit has definitely gone through. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I, and many others, have suffered a lot of "loss of session data" errors recently, as is discussed here. This is most common if I have been editing one page for a long time, checking facts, answering the phone, etc. So, even if you click save, it may not do so, but may give you an error message at the top of the page instead, which you may not notice . Fortunately (so far) pages have saved properly at the second click on Save page - Arjayay (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Stephaniersvpr:, firstly, whatever you write you have to "copy" it first before seeing "preview" or "saving" the page, because even if you lost session or any network problem happens still you don't have to write it again, you just have to "paste" it. Make it a habit to "copy" whatever you write before starting any further action. Secondly, you can also click on Show changes to see exactly what change will happen in article after your edit. It will confirm that whether your edit will appear in article in your desired manner. --Human3015 knock knock • 20:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

An addition to Bilorv's advice: cite the references used if you can find them. Not everything has been cited, but ideally we would want everything to have a source.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like to thank all of you who have offered advice regarding the 'saving' of work. It looks like I shall have to add the links and references again (I suspect I must have missed an error message at the top of the page) as was suggested by Arjayay.

83.50.193.233 (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia principle of NOR

As a neophyte to Wikipedia editing I am going to ask a question that probably has been asked a million times before. I would be grateful for some comments to the following hypothetical scenario.

There exists a village which has a blue tree. The trunk, branches and leaves are all blue. There exists a comprehensive and respected book entitled “Blue Trees of the World”. The author has included a chapter specifically on the blue tree in this village, but his description is based on hearsay, rumour, myth and misunderstanding. He has never visited the village. There exists a Wikipedia article on Blue Trees. Within that article is a description of the blue tree in the village which references and quotes extensively from the book.

The villagers are angered by the inaccuracies of Wikipedia but have no power to edit the article. They live next to the tree, they see it and touch it every day of their lives. But there is no article, journal, magazine, book, reference, or website that documents the tree as it actually is. The villagers are inhibited from correcting Wikipedia by the principle of “no original research” (NOR). Quote: “The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist”. Note the phrase “such as facts”. Wikipedia is based on published sources, not real life first-hand experience (ie. facts). DavidJames21353 (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, DavidJames21353. Your summary is correct, and the difficulties that follow from this policy have been discussed for a long time. Please have a look at the essay WP:Verifiability, not truth. --ColinFine (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course the villagers could write up a description of the tree and submit it to a magazine or journal. That article, once published, could be a source to update Wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 13:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

DES, well, yes. But then the question would be - could the villagers then edit Wikipedia by quoting to their own magazine article? (or even quoting the village website that they wrote themselves). I suspect not, as that is simply a way of getting around the NOR rule? DavidJames21353 (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

DavidJames21353, if the article by the villagers, or one of them, has been reliably published, say by a peer-reviewed journal, or a magazine with a good reputation for fact checking, or a book from a major publisher with a similar reputation, then it is no longer original research and may be cited in a Wikipedia article. While we do discourage people citing their own work, if a different villager edited the Wikipedia article, there should be no problem. Or the cite could be mentioned at Talk:Blue trees. In fact this "way of getting around the NOR rule" is the often-suggested method. The difference between this and the villagers quoting their own website is the editorial control and fact checkign process a reputable publisher should have before it is generally considered a reliable source. DES ^(talk) 16:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

DavidJames21353, if there is only a single reliable source in all the world about them, is it possible these blue trees aren't actually notable? valereee (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Mentoring?

I have spent hours/weeks drafting a page about my husband, Krov Menuhin. He is a professional wildlife documentary film maker for BBC, Channel 4 and Ushuaia France. Now retired and with nearly 40 years in the business he has a well documented history, but no wikipedia page. Members of his family do have a wikipedia page, his father Yehudi Menuhin for instance. As do his compatriots in his professional life, Nicolas Hulot being one such. The draft was turned down on 2 points, 1. NPOV because I am the wife of the subject (who else would know all the details though?) 2.Citations. No doubt I can work out how to correct 2, but not 1. If anyone who has contributed to related pages and would be so incredibly kind to give me a hand I would be eternally grateful. Karen Menuhin KarenMenuhin (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @KarenMenuhin: Welcome to the Teahouse! I know it can be frustrating to have your work rejected. Pages are not necessarily rejected because of a writer's association with the subject, but because a writer wrote the article promotionally. It just so happens that writers who write about things they are closely associated with (a family member, company, etc.), tend to write in a promotional way.

You mention that no one else may know the details about your husband; note that Wikipedia articles should be based on information that is available in published, reliable sources. While you're obviously the most familiar with your husband, another editor should potentially be able to also write the same article through good research.

The particular reason why your draft, Draft:Krov Menuhin, was rejected was that a lot of the information in the article isn't supported by in-line citations. I notice you have an in-line citation for the first sentence in the "Early Life and Military Service" section; the rest of section has none, however. On another note, you should not be citing other Wikipedia articles as a source of information - that's like citing yourself! You should instead look at the sources used in the article you're citing, and cite those. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi and much thanks for your time. I will go back and search out more citations and I have read and understood that other wikipedia pages cannot be used as citations. It is with the help such as you are giving that I am able to hopefully correct these omissions. I was rather dismayed to receive another message stating that the page was lined up for deletion ahead of my starting these corrections. It would help if another editor would kindly help before pressing the delete button. This is not promotional it is a record of achievement. As he is retired there is no reason for any promotional sources and IMDb would cover such a requirement should one exist.--KarenMenuhin (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello gain KarenMenuhin. What was tagged for deletion was not your draft, Draft:Krov Menuhin, but the page Krov Menuhin where you posted a copy or near copy of the question at the start of this thread as if it was an article, no doubt by mistake. Nothing has been lost, and your draft is not up for deletion.

Please note that the IMDB is not considered a reliable source except for a small part of its content, it is best to avoid citing it on Wikipedia. Note also that on Wikipedia "promotional" means not only commercial advertisement, but anything calculated to praise or enhance the reputation of a subject in violation of the NPOV policy. Note further that if there are things that "only you" know about your husband, they can't have been published and so must not be included, unless you first write and publish a biography of him or an article about him in a reliable source such as a reputable magazine.

I made a few small edits to your draft. Feel free to ask more questions here. If you want to work on other articles as well, I would be help to mentor you. DES ^(talk) 16:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi DES, Thank you so much!! Your offer to mentor is deeply appreciated and I will gladly take you up on it. I was in rather a panic about the potential deletion. May I go away for a while and redraft this article in a hopefully more acceptable manner and then ask you kindly to view it? I take to heart your comments and will endeavour to incorporate them accordingly. I have found my wikipedia experience daunting but overall an enjoyable challenge and I would like to be able to contribute on other articles too, once a little more experienced. --KarenMenuhin (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) KarenMenuhin You surely may. However, the current draft at Draft:Krov Menuhin isn't a bad place to start, there is no need to start over from nothing in my view. It may safely be left untouched for a while. As you have already requested an AfC review that will happen sooner or later, probably in several weeks given how many drafts are ahead of it. But don't worry about it. The draft will either be accepted, or if it is rejected it will not be deleted, you will merely be given some additional feedback from another experienced editor. About the only thing that would cause soemoen to delete the draft at this point would be if you had copied in large blocks of text from outside web sites. That is not tolerated even briefly, once it is discovered. When you would like me to advise you, simply post on User talk:DESiegel. I will see any such post the next time I log on to Wikipedia, and I will be notified by email right away. Or you can always post here again at any time. There is no rush to perfect the draft. However, if a draft is left totally untouched -- and by that I mean not even one letter changed -- for 6 months it can be deleted as "abandoned", but even then it will usually be restored on request. Also, do please let me or us know what aspects we could try to improve so others might have a better Wikipedia experience. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 17:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello! I may take a look at it and see if I can improve on anything if I have some time on my hands, but at a glance I can tell you a couple of things that you may want to change;

• The lead sentence would have to briefly summarize his identity and claim to notability,
• You can't use the French wikipedia as a reference for a couple of reasons, mostly related to that fact that WP is not inherently a reliable source,
• IMDB isn't normally an acceptable candidate for use as a reference either, since it is a relatively uncontrolled site that I think can take information from any user with no editorial control,
• The filmography section is in too much detail for how few inline citations there are; it would be best to draft only the most notable works he's been involved in for this section. The BBC documentaries, anything that has gotten considerable notice in outside press would probably good candidates for mention here.

Otherwise, the article might also benefit from an infobox like Template:Infobox person to contain other information in an organized area on the right-hand side of the article page. I'll take a peep if I have some time in the next little while, and feel free to ask me for more help on my talkpage. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 16:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference names

Hello, question about ref names, do all reference names need quotation marks? Is it advised to list <ref name="Teahouse"/> as opposed to <ref name=Teahouse/> ? Any help appreciated, Azealia911 _talk 17:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Azealia911: At least as far as I am aware, there is no difference. Both of those bits of code will function properly. Personally, I use quote marks because that's what I've seen most commonly, and I think it looks better stylistically, but I cannot see any difference between the two in the outputted reference they produce. Feel free to use whichever you want. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the quick response! Azealia911 _talk 17:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You need to use quotes if you have spaces in the ref name. If the ref name doesnt have spaces, you dont need the quotes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Can I write my company, and CEO and founder's wiki page?

Hello,

I've been in contact with your support team but was directed to as a question here for more advice.

I've written wiki pages for my company, and out CEO and founder but was told there might be a conflict of interest here. But I was told by your support team that i can still submit the article using the Articles for Creation process. I'm just quite confused on whether this means I can in fact write the article and whether this will be considered for review. I don't want to go through the process if I'm definitely not eligible to submit the article given that I work at the company?

Thanks

62.255.14.130 (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You shouldn't because you have a conflict of interest which will inhibit your ability to write a properly neutral article. You can make a suggestion for the creation at WP:RA. Note that only subjects that have received significant coverage by third party reliable sources will be allowed to remain as a stand alone article so providing a list of reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail will help others decide if it is appropriate to create such an article.

If you think that you can write a properly neutral representation of the subject, you can use the WP:AFC process , but there is no guarantee of acceptance no matter how much effort you put into it if the subject doesnt meet the minimum criteria.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

regarding Sock puppets

If a sock puppet investigation on particular user is already closed, archived and if we find any suspected sock puppet of him/her then we should start new investigation or should add that to previous investigation case? If we should add it to previous investigation case then how we can get attention from checkusers when that case is already closed or archived? --Human3015 knock knock • 18:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You would use the same main page as the previous investigation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Notability Question

Hi! I recently submitted a page to Wikipedia and it was declined for notability. However, the page used several sources- including Forbes, Business Insider, SXSW, George Mason University, and others. Is there a certain number of sources recommended? Are there some sources that are considered better than others? Thanks! 108.48.71.117 (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You say the page used several sources but that doesn't tell us much about how the topic was covered in the sources, and how the sources were used in the page, which is highly relevant. Do the sources contain detailed information about the subject? Do they instead contain mere passing mentions of the topic? Were they, possibly, used to source material that did appear in the article but was not focused on the topic itself at all? It's very hard to answer this type of question in the hypothetical. Can you tell us what page this was about?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! The page I tried to submit was on the Peace and Collaborative Development Network. Most articles referenced were stories that focused on the network or the founder- not other topics that mentioned the network in passing. Any insights would be appreciated! 108.48.71.117 (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Help on Editing Articles on Kings of Bhutan

Dear Wikipedia Team,

Allow me to introduce myself. I am Kuenzang Lhadon, working at the Centre for Bhutan Studies and GNH Research, an autonomous research organisation in Bhutan (www.bhutanstudies.org.bt). The Centre was established in 1999 and has been working on promoting scholarship on Bhutan and it has published 97 books so far, including a set of biographies of the kings of Bhutan. The Centre as an institution that has published biographies of the kings of Bhutan with authentic information, we felt responsible to edit the information on the Kings of Bhutan and the 'House of Wangchuck' as currently entered in the wikipedia. A bulk of information on them were found to be factually incorrect.

Since we are new to wikipedia, we would like to apologize for the formatting and style that we might have failed to follow in our attempt to edit the articles on the Kings of Bhutan. For the same reason, it is not very convenient for us to communicate through the wikipedia 'talk' page. Would it be possible to communicate with any staff of the Wikipedia on this issue? If it is beyond our capability to edit them ourselves, we would like to seek help from one of the Wikipedia employee to do it on our behalf.

Sincerely yours, Kuenzang

Dasho Karma Ura (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Dasho Karma Ura: and welcome to the Teahouse!

The "Staff" of Wikipedia are "merely" those that keep the organization going. Any content decisions and discussions will need to be done with other volunteer editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear @TheRedPenOfDoom:,

So I go to the link you have given for 'volunteer editors' and inquire there to find out if there is possibility of one of them to help us edit the articles?

Dasho Karma Ura (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The link I provided was to the policy page that describes how content decisions are made. To find other people interested in and actively working on the articles of your focus, you might try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa. As an open and volunteer based project, there is very little centralization. And topics related to Africa are one of the areas where Wikipedia is lacking in content, quality of content and active editors -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:TheRedPenofDoom, I do not think Bhutan is in... or anywhere near... Africa!

Kuenzang, you may wish to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bhutan, to post questions or suggestions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bhutan, and perhaps also to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject South Asia. Given some of Bhutan's cultural links and history, you might also consider asking for help or ideas at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. The work that your Centre is doing is very important and appreciated. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

D'oh - my geography sucks!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Arthur goes shopping: and @TheRedPenOfDoom:, thanks for your help. I will now try seeking help on Wikiproject Bhutan.

Dear @Arthur goes shopping: I would like to request you to help me with the process of editing the articles I mentioned earlier. I will share them with you once I have them ready. Thank you in advance. Dasho Karma Ura (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[Kuenzang]

Sure, I would be happy to help. (I am not a Wikipedia employee, but a volunteer.) Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

RE Draft:TheDiamondStore.co.uk: Do you think this article submission will be accepted now that I've made major changes to it?

I wrote an article about a company (with a disclosed conflict of interest because I work for them): Draft:TheDiamondStore.co.uk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TheDiamondStore.co.uk. The article was not accepted and I've now made big changes to it, removing or changing anything that I think got it rejected before. I believe it now meets the requirements, however, I'd really appreciate it if someone could tell me if I should edit it further? The feedback I received said it was "not written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article", "entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources", "please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format", "please make sure to avoid peacock terms". Thank you very much in advance for your time, if you feel you could lend me a hand with this, it's my first submission ever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JoTDSJoTDS (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @JoTDS:! The tone doesnt seem to be the absolutely overly promotional tone that many articles present - so good job there. However there is still significant issue that the subject has not been covered in a detailed manner by reliably published third party sources. Most of the content appears to be passing mentions in publications that appear to consist mostly of reprinting press releases or from blogs. If the award is from a major, recognized player that may qualify the subject, but if it is just a fluffery that is given out to 50 places a year or to anyone who pays the entry fee or from a fly by night organization with no credibility, then it really doesnt matter and should not be included. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom! Thank you SO much for your helpful comments. Also, thank you for confirming that you feel the tone is better now. OK, I will revise the references again for the various statements, I understand what you mean about reliable sources. To answer your question, the UK Jewellery Award is definitely a biggie, it's the second biggest national jewellery industry award in the UK. The entry and winning takes a massive amount of preparation and you have to be one of the top retailers to win it, so it's a huge achievement and one of the main points of interest that genionely needs to be included. Annoyingly, the UK Jewellery Award organisers decided to take the 2013 & 2014 award winner pages down and replace them only with the 2015 details! So all we have left to cite are the jewellery industry news sites that confirm the winners. For those, I've stuck to references in the main UK professional jewellery retail magazines and The British Jewellery Association's news page, and I know they really do qualify as proper references. I'll now revise the rest and see what's what with the other statements, as I appreciate the blog references may not be considered sufficiently reliable to cover the other facts. Thanks a million for all your help, I thoroughly appreciate you taking the time to reply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JoTDSJoTDS (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

An enquiry as to what i did wrong?

Hello, when i visited the wikipedia site i received a message saying not to vandalise pages and that changes i had apparently made to 2 pages were incorrect and seen as vandalism. Now the two pages in question i did no editing on so im confused as to why im the one receiving the blame for this? 81.170.19.210 (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The edits in question are this and this. Your IP address is static. Has anyone else been using your computer or internet connection? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as i know no one else has been on the internet, i checked on the network and the only devices connected to the router is this laptop and the XBOX, its a weird one, i dont even know who Jackie Wilson is. 81.170.19.210 (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

If no one else lives with you, you'll want to double check your wifi's security and at least change the password. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ian Thomson is correct, may be someone in your neighbours is using your wifi signal.

Best is to change the pass word of router.

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 08:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course the best solution is to Create an account. which will avoid any doubt as to who edited the pages in question, - Arjayay (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Help on new article

I want to publish an article about a 12 year old record label, that has worked with famous artists and sold many records. I referenced my article using suitable, independent sources and included no opinion, bias or misleading material. I posted it in the sandbox and it was declined. Why is this? "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Schnitzel_Records_Ltd." (the full stop/period is part of the link) Kinee123 (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

If you read the decline message, you'll see that it points you to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which explains the criteria for inclusion. The sources you included said, basically, nothing significant about the record company, and so were not sufficient to demonstrate that it met Wikipedia's notability requirements. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello! I think one of the main problems you've run into here as well is that the sources you've used are not considered sufficiently reliable to be verifiable or to establish notability, or that they are too close of a source to the subject matter. A good way to tell is to go to WP:RSN, our discussion board for identifying reliable sources, and searching the URLs or source names you want to use as references in the archive. Off the top, I can say Discogs isn't generally considered reliable based on this. You may want to post there asking about the other two sources, Spex and Ghost Cult, if you're not sure and want a second opinion since no one's posted anything about them on RSN yet, but it would be a lot easier to try and find a more readily identifiable reliable source for music journalism. Major music reporting outlets such as Rolling Stone, Billboard and the like is more along the lines of what's usable. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 11:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Publish another user's draft?

Does Wikipedia have a protocol for publishing a draft article from someone else's user space? The article I have in mind is User:GlennRay77/Dangerous Assignment.

I discovered the article in a search in January 2014. At that time, I posted a comment on the user's talk page (about the content, not about posting). The user has not responded in almost a year and a half.

Since the user seems to be unresponsive, am I allowed to move the article so that others can read it and add to it? 173.217.226.50 (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi 173. You posted to the draft's talk page so the editor might not notice it. However the editor has not edited for a lengthy period of time so their Wikipedia activity might have been curtailed. The answer to your question is yes, you can publish abandoned drafts, especially as you've tried to notify the creator. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but you might want to try to cite some of the uncited facts before you more to mainspace, or shortly after. I've added some {{cn}} tags to the draft. And you will need to register (or log into) an account and be autoconfirms (10+ edits, 4+ days) to move a page, or ask someone to do it on your behalf. DES ^(talk) 01:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I have moved with a redirect the page to Draft:Dangerous Assignment. The original editor has been gone for over 2 years. Good luck with it! John from Idegon (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I appreciate the help. I will try to find sources for the needed citations. (I also need to check my log-in status more closely in the future. I thought I was logged in when I posted that comment.) Eddie Blick (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

As I began looking for source material, I encountered a related question and problem. Significant blocks of material in the Wikipedia draft are identical to material in an article at PegMedia.org (a site with which I am not familiar). See Draft:Dangerous Assignment#Series Premise and Draft:Dangerous Assignment#Television Series. Should I assume that PegMedia.org copied from this article -- or vice-versa? Eddie Blick (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Teblick Check dates, if you can. The page history will tell you when the content was added to the draft. Also look to see if the content was added to the draft in pieces or in a single fini8shed block. The wayback machine might tell you when the text was added to the outside source. If in doubt, (or if it is clear that the outside site came first) rewrite the draft text so that it is not a copy or close paraphrase o the outside site, and source it to that site. DES ^(talk) 12:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that. A related matter is the reliability of PegMedia.org. Even if I rewrite, is that source acceptable for a citation in Wikipedia? I was not aware of it until I found the Dangerous Assignment article on it last night. Eddie Blick (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Teblick, There are lots of sources out there, no one can know them all. Do a Google search on it, see what others have said about it, if anything. Look to see what other sorts of things they host. See if they list an editorial board or process. Ask at WP:RSN. Ultimately it is a judgement call. DES ^(talk) 13:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Former Wikipedia entry for TAK audio encoder now under Speck-Made's user page

Can anyone shed some light as to the rights this user has to do that?
Do I have the right to copy and paste it back or simply change it into the right category?
Maringaense 11:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, looking at it right now, Maringaense it seems as though it was being incubated in Speck-Made's userspace after it was deleted through AfD in 2009 - see here - and it's perfectly fine for a user to do that so they can improve on a prospective article. The article draft they have appears to have no sources and to be written in a highly promotional tone, so unless either they or you improved significantly on it I would advise against trying to put it into Wikipedia mainspace again, lest you have it just be deleted once more. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 11:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up BLUSTER. I guess all there is for me to do is offering him/her some assistance with 'sourcing it up' and everything after.Maringaense 14:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Maringaense. The other editor has been inactive on Wikipedia for 15 months. If you believe that the topic is notable, you are free to write a neutral, well referenced article yourself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I wanna write in wiki about HLP Bangladesh... I also did it but someone deleted this article!!

I am the technical admin of HLP Bangladesh... I want to write about (The horizontal learning program) HLP in this page.. I also wrote here but someone delete this article... So can u please describe me what the problem?

Imran Bangladesh Mr.imranbd (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The article Horizontal Learning Program was deleted as it was an "Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://horizontallearning.net/Content.php?MId=35&SubMId=55",
We cannot accept any material from copyright sources, even if you wrote it yourself, moreover, such material is usually too promotional in tone for use in one of our articles.
You have admitted you work for the organization that you wish to write about, which gives you a conflict of interest in writing about it at all. Please read and follow our guidance here Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

{{R from alternative language}} problem

Hello. I've encountered a problem with the template {{R from alternative language}}. It is supposed to recognize all ISO 639-1 codes for it's language parameters, but it doesn't recognize that the codes "jv" or "jav" belong to Javanese. The page is template protected, so I need to find an admin to fix. Where could I find one who knows enough about the coding? Compassionate727 (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Compassionate727, welcome to the Teahouse. It seems to work on for example Semanggi. What code do you use on which page, and what is different from the expected behaviour? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello. My example is 6ixtynin9. I'm trying to say that it is a redirect to from English to Javanese, but it won't register as that.

{{R from alt lang|en|jv}} The jv isn't processed as being the "other language," despite the correct code being entered. Compassionate727 (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: It requires the corresponding category to exist. Category:Redirects from Javanese-language terms existed before but not Category:Redirects to Javanese-language terms. I have created it and added |jv to 6ixtynin9. It works now. I have removed your active code here to prevent this page from being added to the category. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Are images of comic books public domain?

I recently created an article about Bill Hume (cartoonist). Unfortunately, there are no images of his works on WikiCommons. The works were published in the 1950s and feature his name. Is it alright for me to upload a few of these images to Wikimedia? BBoruMcD (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@BBoruMcD: The images would not be in the public domain because they were created after the 1920s. It is likely that such as image could be fair use if it satisfies Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. You would want to use Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard and fill out a fair use rationale. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Mistake naming a file

Can someone please fix this, I uploaded a book cover and didn't realise I made a mistake naming it, Queen of the Elephants. Thanks (Monkelese (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Monkelese, I have moved it to File:Queen of the Elephants.jpg. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Monkelese: Note however that the resolution is far too high for a fair-use cover. Around 250px is more common. It risks being deleted. Please upload a version with lower resolution. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks (Monkelese (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Drafted a new article. A new article with the same name came up. What should I do with the draft?

I drafted a new article 17 days ago. There were no articles on that topic at the time of writing. But, there was a deleted article (deleted due to copyright violation). My draft was submitted and it stays in the AfC category even now. In the mean time, another person wrote an article on the same topic with the same title. 1) What should I do with the draft article? 2) How did my article stay in AfC while the other article was created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachu92 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello| Sachu92 and welcome to the Teahouse. I suppose that you refer to Draft:Indian Institute of Technology Palakkad and Indian Institute of Technology Palakkad. The other article was created by Abilngeorge on 7 July, not using the WP:AFC procedure. The two texts seem to include much of the same information. I would suggest that you edit Indian Institute of Technology Palakkad to include any information or sources from your draft mot already included in the article. Once you have added all useful information from the draft, you can ask for the draft to be deleted by adding {{Db-author}} to it. (Oh please sign talk posts with four tildes (~~~~) in future. Thanks.) I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 13:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you DESiegel! That was very helpful. I have followed your advice and added the deletion tag in the draft. My apologies for not signing the main post. sachin (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Should we be adding software links to statistical questions?

Many articles in statistics would, I think, benefit from having brief summaries of software that can do the thing in the article (e.g. regression, cluster analysis, factor analysis etc). I haven't seen much of this, so I wondered if it is a policy not to include them.

I joined the statistics portal, but didn't see where I should ask that.

Thanks! (I am very new here - 4 or 5 edits so far) PeterLFlomPhD (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

External links should follow the external links guidelines, particularly those in the "Links normally to be avoided" section.--ukexpat (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi PeterLFlomPhD, portals such as the statistics portal are navigational aids around a topic. If you want a place to join in helping edit on a topic area then you need to look for a wiki project. Often they will be linked to from the talk pages of the portal and article pages at the top, as on Portal talk:Statistics is the link to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics. There you'll find the talk page to ask questions, resource links, member lists, etc. Hope that helps - Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! That is very helpful! PeterLFlomPhD (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Articles

Hi, sorry for interrupting but how do we add articles and change colors and line colors, and thanks.ThEdestrOYER101 (talk) 08:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @ThEdestrOYER101: and Welcome to the Teahouse. There is no interruption - we are here to answer questions!

But first some questions for you. The first question is, "Who is 'we'?" Every person must create and use their own account.

The second question is "Do the subjects of these new articles meet the requirements for a stand alone article on Wikipedia? If the answer is "yes", I would recommend following the process outlined here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I just said we as in how do people who edit and yes I guess they do meet the requirements! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThEdestrOYER101 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello ThEdestrOYER101. You might want to look at Help:Editing and Help:Wiki markup. While it is possible to change text color and/or background color for text on Wikipedia, it is rarely appropriate to do so, mostly in tables. As for adding articles, I suggest the use of the article wizard, it will guide you through the process. But as TRPoD advised above, make sure that there are plenty of reliable, independent published sources that discuss your subject before you try to create an article about it. DES ^(talk) 12:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Views/day

Hi, how views/day of an article is calculated ? Recently, I started using suggest by bots. Their I had a list of articles with a column indicating views/day. Is it the total no. of views divided by no. of days and it gets updated every day? eg - if an article has been viewed 100 times in first 2 days, views/day equals 50 and then no views for next 8 days, then views/day will be 10 after 10 days. Is it? Asking out of curiosity :-) Thanks Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Views per day is calculated from Wikipedia article traffic statistics using the average of the past two weeks. Full documentation is available here. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Winner 42, yes that makes more sense - using the average of the past two weeks. Thanks! Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

first article

Hello Teahouse, thanks for being here and the invitation to seek assistance.

I'm working on three articles. Two are still awaiting review and one was declined. It needs more third party verifiable sources. My questions are:

1. Is it recommended to have more online citations or published citations from journals, periodicals, etc? 2. Would you recommend using an existing article within a category? I am trying to create an article about an independent music recording studio and publishing house that has hosted a broad range or established and highly regarded artists (many of whom have articles on wikipedia) and as a category-article reference i used a wikipedia article about the "electrical audio" studio. 3. Any hints about how to differentiate the cultural value of the article's subject from any of it's commercial work, ie so the article does not venture towards the forbiden advertisement and is instead a reference point for researchers and enthusiasts reviewing the genealogy of recorded music in this part of the world (Oklahoma).

I'm writing to you from China currently and will return to a more dynamic search engine next week (ie looking for additional citations).

thank you! I'm enjoying learning about this processs.

craigsmithii Craigsmithii (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Craigsmithii: and welcome to the Teahouse!

The requirements for a stand alone article are that reliably published sources, not connected to the subject of the article, have covered the subject in a significant manner. The sources can be paper or online, but they have to have a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. So a paper peer reviewed journal would generally be perfectly fine, even if it's not accessible on the web, but some guy's website or forum posts or another Wikipedia article are not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Craigsmithii. TRPoD has answered some of your questions: I'll try to answer some more. If I understand your question 2 correctly, you're asking if you should use an existing article as a model. The answer is yes - provided you have a reason to think that the model is a good article. There are many bad articles in Wikipedia, and you don't want to use one of those. Have a look at the article's talk page, and see what is said about it, especially if it has been rated by a WikiProject. If you can find one that has been a Good article or a Featured article, that would be best (there is a small possibility that somebody has majorly broken the article since that nomination, but that is not likely).

On your question 3, Wikipedia does not (much) distinguish between cultural and commercial values: the important thing is what independent have written about in reliable published sources. A good article will always have substantially more prose about the subject (and possibly about particular works) than listings of their works whatever the quality of the latter. It's usually better to list selected works rather than a full discography; but the items listed should be the ones that have most been written about (i.e. reviewed - even, or especially, if the reviews are uniformly bad!) --ColinFine (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing cats from redirects

I've been removing categories such as Category:2014 songs from redirects that I come across. Is the standard way of handling them, or should I stop? Compassionate727 (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

you should probably stop. cats help projects monitor articles. and if the redirect is based on a current lack of notability, that may change - it could get included as part of a soundtrack and make it to the charts or it could get sampled by popular song which generates coverage about the original, ect. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Articles on other people

I have been editing Wikipedia on off for about a year, all my articles are in architecture and edits are in a similar area. I have been wanting to do an article, from scratch, on a person and wondered if you have any tips. thanks Wrightie99 (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Wrightie99:. Two big tips that come to mind are: gather the third party sources that discuss the subject and utilize the Articles for Creation process. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Wrightie99:. Hey Wrightie99. I cannot emphasize how much I agree with TRPoD's first sentiment above. The key to a successful article is gathering sources first, if they sufficiently exist (if not, don't write on that topic) and then let what they say guide your writing hand (without copying their words), citing to them to verify what you are writing.

Keeping this in mind, you might find a good topic to write about at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences#Architecture. You might also explore the red links in List of women architects, Honorary Fellowship of the American Institute of Architects, List of architects of supertall buildings, and any others with red links in Category:Lists of architects. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for resources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My article on a leading US scientist and NCI Director

Hello

I work at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health. I created a biography page for our newly appointed Acting Director, Dr. Doug Lowy, an eminent virologist and scientist and submitted for review. The page is based on his scientific biosketch on his laboratory page on the National Cancer Institute's Center for Cancer Research website. Content on this website is in the public domain since it is maintained by the Federal government. There is no copyright on this information. However, the reviewer deleted the page citing copyright violation.

It was also suggested that the article might not be posted since the person may not meet a criteria of notability. How does one establish the notability - I would think that the content about the person and the extensive citations and references that were included should allow a reviewer to look up the person and make that decision. In fact, all of the previous directors of the National Cancer Institute have wikipedia pages. Given that the page was deleted, how can i send you a copy for you to review and give me feedback.

Quietvillager (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think your point about the copyright status of the NIH website is a valid one - as an agency of the Federal Government its content is public domain. I have left a message to that effect on User:Diannaa's talk page to that effect. Perhaps she will undelete it to a user subpage for you so that you can work on it further.--ukexpat (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Quietvillager, and welcome to the Teahouse. Ukexpat has dealt with your copyright issue, although a note to permissions-en@wikimedia.org might be a good idea. On the notability issue, Wikipedia uses "notability" in its own technical sense (and I wish we had chosen a different term). "Notability" does not directly indicate how significant or worthy someone's accomplishments are, or how important a position a person holds. It means have other people published writing about the person, discussing him or her in some detail, so that an article can be based on independent third-party reliable sources, as is required by our verifiability and neutrality policies. If a person has been discussed in multiple reliable published sources in some detail, that person will generally be considered notable, otherwise not (there is some judgement to be used about the quality of the sources and the depth of discussion). From your description, Dr. Lowy is probably notable, but you will need to find and cite independent sources that discuss him to establish that. Since Dr. Lowry is your colleague, and apparently your organizational superior, you seem to have a conflict of interest, and should consider letting someone else write any article. If you do proceed, please read our page linked above on conflict of interest, and edit accordingly. If you go ahead, i strongly suggest the use of the article wizard which is part of the articles for creation process. I urge your to start over, but if you want the deleted article restored as a draft, that might be possible. If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|DESiegel}} to your message, and signing it. DES ^(talk) 16:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ukexpat - thank you for your response. I will also follow up with Dianaa

Hello DESiegel - thanks for your pointers about conflict of interest and I think we were careful to cite independent sources and plenty of references to seminal articles in peer-reveiwed journals that established Dr. Lowy's credentials as a researcher and expert in his field. If the article page is restored as a draft, I would appreciate it if you could take a look and give me any additional pointers about how to make sure it doesn't violate Wikipedia's guidelines. Thanks again. --Quietvillager (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

We dont really care what he has written. We care that others have written about him and his work. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

and very little of the article should be based on websites of him or his employers. Almost all of it should be based on what independent people have written about him. --ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, looking over the deleted draft, the cited major awards are probably alone enough to establish notability. Now we jsut need to get the copyright issues dealt with. Quietvillager, there seems to have been at least one non-gov site involved, so much the best plan would be to rewrite the draft in original words, not directly copied from any existing site, in my view. DES ^(talk) 21:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought citations to peer-reviewed journal articles that he has published and that have been cited and major awards from reputable scientific organizations are at the core of establishing scientific authority in a field. I would like you to take a look at the draft post and let me know if it violates any of the guidelines of Wikipedia. I worked closely with the National Institutes of Health team and the Wikimedia Foundation on the NIH Wikipedia guidelines and so I am sensitive to making sure that the content that we propose to post does not violate guidelines.

DESiegel - can you take a look a the page Draft:Douglas_R._Lowy and let me know if there is anything else that would be needed. 4 of the immediate predecessors of Dr. Lowy (former Directors of NCI) have Wikipedia pages. Quietvillager (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Smart people have it tough on Wikipedia , its much easier for trashy internet memes to make the cut. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Quietvillager, I have added some content and references. I think this is nearly ready to publish as an article, and so does the latest WP:AFC reviewer. Just some cleanup. There is additional info in some of the non-technical refs now linked that could be added. However, don't get into the mindset of "these other similar people have articles, so this person should also". We call that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and it is an argument that holds almost no weight here. Almost every article and subject is different. The sourcves available, and the subset of those that have been cited in an article will vary. Adding additional relevant source content, particularly adding cites to the news items that describe his research to the "Research activities" section might help, but there is no urgency in that. DES ^(talk) 00:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Struggling with issues regarding sources and notability

My draft of this page got rejected due to notability and sourcing issues, I tried to remove a few non-notable sources, just wanting some feedback and help so I can get this page posted.

Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:NEXT_foundation&oldid=671334285

Thanks Edwardhkrishna (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hello @Edwardhkrishna:. The two New Zealand Herald articles are a good beginning. Start trimming back everything that is not supported by sources of that quality and you will be in good shape. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Use of the reFill tool

Hi, still trying to find our when or when not to use the reFill tool. For example these references, how to solve this, manually filling in or remove the text and have reFill go over it. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Kindly review this content & let us know if any changes are needed as per Wikepedia guidelines

[Draft text removed] Rajcurator (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rajcurator, welcome to the Teahouse. Please don't post the text of drafts here. Link to the draft instead like [[Draft:N Z Seasonal Wear Pvt. Ltd.]] to produce Draft:N Z Seasonal Wear Pvt. Ltd. You can work on the draft there. If you need anything from the version you posted here then it is here. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Photographs

Hello, I am working on making a page for a living artist. I want to include some photographs of both the artist and their work. I have spoken to their representative gallery who sent me photographs that they own the rights to, and have permission to use them for a wikipedia page. Is there some way that I have to prove that I was given permission for these photographs before uploading? Or do I just go ahead and upload them?Clarefinin (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Please e-mail evidence of the permissions to: permissions-en@wikimedia.org . Note though that permission must be for all uses, including commercial reuse. Permission limited to use on Wikipedia only is not sufficient. Hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

And note that you cannot give permission. The copyright holder must be the one giving permission. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Great, should I attach the photos to the email that contains proof of permission, or is there some other way to link the permission to the files?Clarefinin (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarefinin, please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed, whre it says: "1. If the material is not already on Commons or Wikipedia: Upload relevant images, sound recordings or videos to Commons ... 2. E-Mail the permission e-mails for Commons uploads to "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org" ... Make sure to include in this mail: the original request and confirmation answer; the source Internet URL and the Wikimedia link for the image or article ... 3. Add {{OTRS pending}} to the image description page or article talk page (whichever is applicable)." I hope that helps. DES ^(talk) 16:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Death of Half-Yellow-Face

I would like to learn the exact source for the information regarding the details of the death of Half-Yellow-Face. The article has ten endnotes but none for the paragraph describing the incident that caused his death. This information is not found anywhere but on Wikipedia. I would like to communicate with the individual who entered this information to learn exactly where they found it. Please advise. Thank you. Sincerely, Roger Williams68.3.147.32 (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You can leave a message on the talk page of the user who has contributed most to that article by completing this form.--ukexpat (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)