Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 442

Archive 435

←

Archive 440

Archive 441

Archive 442

Archive 443

Archive 444

Archive 445

Combine IP account with new account?

For several years I made contributions just through my IP address, without an actual Wiki account. Today I've created an account and now have no contributions...is there a way I can combine my contributions made while just using the IP address with my new account? Apspowerengineer (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Apspowerengineer, welcome to Teahouse and congrats for creating an account. But there is no way to combine contributions of two users. You can write on your user page that "I was editing since several years via IP". But it will better to not disclose your IP address. There is no need of combining contributions, you can have fresh start and you can use your past experience while editing via this account. Have happy editing. Cheers.--Human3015 ^{It will rain}  16:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, too bad, but I will plow on. Thanks!

Apspowerengineer (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Question

I just signed up for suggest bot but it only gave me articles that are already in existence. How do I get suggestions for articles that don't exist yet cause I really like to do new articles😊 Only one interested in China related suggestions though.Notgoingtotellyou (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Notgoingtotellyou Welcome to Teahouse. There is no bot to suggest non existent articles. You have to think according to your interest to create new articles. Still you can read Wikipedia:WikiProject China/Requested articles to see requests of some new articles. Also there are some stubs articles in Category:China stubs, you can expand those. Cheers.--Human3015 ^{It will rain}  16:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I notice from your edit history, that you have not previously created an article, or at least not one that has survived. I suggest that you consider using the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process, and creating drafts prior to main articles, at least for your first few articles. New articles in the main namespace come under heavy scrutiny almost instantly, and a great many of them get rapidly deleted for failing to meet Wikipedia's standards for a published article. Human's advice to start with expanding stub articles from WikiProject China is also excellent, as a stub that has survived for a week or two is much less likely to get deleted. You can possibly avoid some pain for completely new articles via the AfC process, although it is entirely up to you. If you are confident that there won't be a problem, you are welcome to go right ahead and boldly create your first article. --Murph9000 (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

... and if you have another area of interest or expertise, you can choose from a long list at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Dbfirs 17:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Question!

Excuse Me, Can I make my fictional episode guide now? I've been waiting all morning to make one!TheBetterAccount2016 (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

In view of your hyperactivity here in creating multiple accounts and asking lots of questions, it might be wise to give Wikipedia a rest until you are older and able to make constructive edits. Meanwhile, your fake article is still here if you wish to copy it to your own webspace. You could create your own Wiki where you could add whatever you wish. Dbfirs 16:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016. The sockmaster is indefinitely blocked. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

citing a search

I would like to support the statement that "a company is listed as a supplier of purified water in over 1400 peer-reviewed technical articles" by citing searches using Google Scholar and/or on the American Chemical Society database. These searches are clearly verifiable and repeatable and I do not want to cite the 1400 articles separately. How do I cite the searches?Paul W1901 (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Paul W1901. I think there is some disagreement on this, but in my view, claiming that something is cited in more than 1400 articles would be original research and so not acceptable (especially since it appears to be promotional in intent). You would need an independent published source that says in so many words that it is listed in over 1400 articles. --ColinFine (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Elaboration on the Cloudyn article deletion

Hello,

I would like to farther understand why the article I created, titled "Cloudyn", was deleted. I tried to stick to the format of the existing article about "Cloud Cruiser", a company that offers similar services. Which part of the article I wrote seemed to be commercial? How does it differ from the Cloud Cruiser article?

Thank you Mynameisalon (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The draft was rejected and subsequently deleted because it was too promotional in tone. Please see WP:SPAM.--ukexpat (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Mynameisalon. Unfortunately, only administrators can see deleted pages, so I can't tell. I suggest you contact either the editor who deleted it, Jimfbleak or the editor who declined your submission, Robert McClenon. But note that just because an article exists doesn't mean it is a good model. --ColinFine (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I declined it because it did not, in my judgment, establish corporate notability. Not every company is notable. It was then tagged for speedy deletion as too promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

New pages created by the person it is about?

Good afternoon, What is the stance on New Pages most likely created by the person the page is about? What do we do about it. I have seen one before that was obviously created by a bored school kid, and reported it for deletion. But I have just seen one by an actor, that was also not in English. Do we report it for deletion, or is there somewhere we can report it, for a more seasoned editor can look at it?, and decide if it is beneficial to Wikipedia? Cheers Lbmarshall (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Read the autobiography policy. Autobiographies are strongly discouraged due to conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

My Redemption

Hi, I am the same user of American Weekend Pizza 2013, Gifted Teen, and Geno Robinson Wood. I'm sorry for what I did before and if you can find it somewhere forgive me, I promise I wont reopen List of Triton Henderson episodes for eternity. I am trying to make a change in Wikipedia. A brighter future on Wikipedia, I'm just an avarage person on Wikipedia. Please give me a second chance with account and my episode guide. I still want to make one. I stil want an acconut. I'll be the better user. I can change on Wikipedia. And god knows that!!! Now can I make my fictional episode guide now? ;DTheBetterAccount2016 (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016. The sockmaster is indefinitely blocked. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If the original poster hadn't been so busy bothering us with questions, we might not have noticed the sockpuppetry. This was a boomerang. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Creating an autobiography.

hi our practice submitted an autobiography for our prosthodontist last week and I'm having trouble finding it but it's not in the deletion log. The Dr. has run a practice for 30+ years and well-reknown in the city. Is it possible to create a page without deletion? We have sources such as some magazine publications on the Dr., dental orgaziation memberships (ACP), and are trying to get online sources showing his degrees.

Any advice appreciated. Thanks, Sara Wrgdds (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If you click on the "Contributions" link towards the top right-hand corner of any page it will take you to a list, including the userspace draft to which you refer. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

But please be aware, Sara that your words above suggest you may be in breach of several of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Autobiography is strongly discouraged; Accounts should be used by only one person (which your "Our practice submitted" suggests is not the case); and Wikipedia may not be used for promotion. If Dr Gielincki passes the test for notability (in Wikipedia's special sense - basically that there exist several substantial pieces about him, written by people unconnected with him and published in reliable places) then Wikipedia may have an article about him. It should be neutral in tone, based almost entirely on what these independent people have written about him, and not be written by him, or you, or "our practice" because of your conflict of interest. If you are here to help us improve Wikipedia, you are very welcome. But please do not come here to promote anything, whether a person, an idea, an organisation, or anything else. --ColinFine (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The draft still exists, but is tagged for speedy deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

promotional content in article

The lead paragraph in Heineken Green Room in Singapore concludes with: For updates on upcoming Heineken Green Room events, log on to https://www.facebook.com/heineken.

This strikes me as overly promotional. Should I just delete the sentence?

MB (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The whole thing is a spamfest and should be deleted and recreated from a neutral POV, if indeed it is notable, or severely pruned.--ukexpat (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Definitely seems overly promotional to me. Also, the article's organization is a little strange -- listing year by year with just one or two events seems over-the-top. I might organize it in a more condensed fashion.

Disclosure: I am still new to this, my answer could be improved by someone much more knowledgeable! ;) Apspowerengineer (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Alternate spelling, how to include in article?

I want to add to an article by showing an alternative spelling of a word is commonly used. Two questions: 1.) I can show this by pointing to many websites, but how should I determine which site is most valuable as a reference for this spelling? 2.) Is it ok to add this mention of an alternative spelling form in the first paragraph of the word's wiki page?

Thanks! Apspowerengineer (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Apspowerengineer. Good question. I take it that it is the subject of the article which has variant spellings? In that case, the lead (or the beginning of the first section after the lead) should certainly mention the different spellings. As to which spelling to use: like much else in Wikipedia, that is a question of judgment. If most of the reliable sources use one spelling, and only a few use others, then choose the most-used one. If they are evenly split, then I think it is up to you to choose a spelling and stick to it. If the spelling is a matter of different regional varieties of English, then unless the subject is particularly associated with one part of the English speaking world, again you can choose which spelling to use: see WP:ENGVAR. When you have written the article (or, if you are using the Articles for Creation process, when it has been reviewed and accepted and moved to main space) you probably want to create a redirect page from the other spelling.

Very good advice. The spelling is about a page already created on Wikipedia, so I will add to it to mention about the other common spelling and learn how to do the redirect as well. Thanks! Apspowerengineer (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Help

How can i see the cahill map of the phillipines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plx Angel (talk • contribs) 07:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Plx Angel, welcome to the teahouse. Do you mean the Cahill-Keyes projection? Would that be useful for a country that is much smaller than the size of the Earth? I think most map projections will look quite similar for the Philippines. Anyway, Wikimedia Commons has quite a few maps of the Philippines, see Commons:Category:Maps of the Philippines. Gap9551 (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Order of Article Elements

I'm adding a refimprove template to an article that already has a redirect at the top of it, does the refimprove come before or after the redirect? Alcherin (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If it is a redirect, it doesn't need references. The references will be on the article to which it is redirecting. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm adding a refimprove template to the top of a full article that has other titles redirecting to it. I was asking as to what order the templates should be in. Alcherin (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

So you are perhaps saying that the article doesn't have a redirect at the top of it, but has a template indicating that another page redirects to it? In which case, that template comes before the refimprove. See WP:ORDER. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding club crest to an info box

Hello Teahouse,

I am beginner to wikipedia. I am working on a page in my sandbox, it is for our football club, Inter Taipei FC. I had uploaded the logo to go into the info box and couldn't get the correct size. After getting it right I tried to upload the final image and got the response, that the image already exists but was deleted. I am now unable to re-upload the image. Why?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Lion Harley (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

On your talk page on Wikimedia Commons, you will see a warning message explaining that the image was deleted because it was believed to be subject to copyright, and no-one had provided a copyright waiver. The message includes links described what you might be able to do about it. Maproom (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Images like this are called "non-free" images, and they go through quite a different process than normal "free" images, which are released for anybody to use. "Non-free" images are permitted on English Wikipedia (NOT Wikimedia Commons) under certain restrictive conditions. The full details are at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images, but by far the easiest way to do it is to use the wizard. Basically: start with a low-resolution image (certainly under 100,000 pixels, preferably well under), and use the "Upload file" link on the left hand side of English Wikipedia to upload the file. When asked, specify that it is a non-free image of type "Team and corporate logos", i.e. it is the logo used to identify the subject of the article. It will ask you to justify how the use of the image will be minimized: state that it will be used only once at the top of the article and it is low resolution (111 x 222 pixels). (Substitute the actual size of your image there!) The questions may seem repetitive or unimportant to you, but if you treat them seriously your image will have a far better chance of surviving. Hope that makes sense; let me know if you have problems.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Gronk Oz's advice is all good, Lion Harley, but there's one important thing he missed out: one of the conditions that must be met for a non-free image to be uploaded to Wikipedia is that it is used in at least one article. For this purpose, a draft in your sandbox is not an article. You need to wait until the draft has been moved into main article space (either just by moving it, or, better, by getting it reviewed) before you upload the logo to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Lion Harley, sorry I missed that the article was still in your sandbox. First the article "goes live" in Article space, then you can upload the image. Thanks for catching that, ColinFine. --Gronk Oz (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q8: Forget It Let Me TALK ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!!

First of all, why would users be watching my sandbox? It's for my personal use! Second, Can I please make my fictonal episode guide? Third, Will I be "breaking the law" when I create the fictional episode guide? I gonna make it no matter what! It is my sandbox for crying out loud!! I said it was fictional, so it's fictional. Why are the people making a stinking big deal out of it?! Like I said it is my sandbox! And y'all should read that it says the information is fictional. So It turns out that the info is fictional!! Why can't y'all notice that? I know wikipeida is open and all of that, but why can't i create my fictional episode guide? I'm not breaking no law when I'm just creating an episode guide which is infact "FICTIONAL!!!!!!!!!!!" So, please. I beg you please. Can I make my fictional episode guide nnow?!!!AmericanWeekendPizza2013 (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You made your page here then deleted it, but we are puzzled by the purpose. If you just want webspace, then this is the wrong place for you. If you want to start making useful contributions, then you are welcome to have just one account. Dbfirs 15:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Fictional or not isn't the question. The acceptable uses of user pages (including sandboxes) are described at Wikipedia:User pages: "User pages are available to Wikipedia users personally for purposes compatible with the Wikipedia project and acceptable to the community; Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site." Sandboxex are not private, they are not personal, they are not for any use beyond "purposes compatible with the Wikipedia project".--Gronk Oz (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

12v 20 amp gel batteries

Hello, i need information about 12v 20 amp gel batteries, please Emconrado87 (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We have an article on VRLA battery#Gel battery. If this doesn't provide the information you seek, try asking on the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science‎‎. Dbfirs 22:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Edited names

An admin choose to delete some names of award winners from a page I update for an association. notes show "NN" as a reason...can someone clarify what this means? WJD 22:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Droop65 (talk • contribs)

The abbreviation is for "Not notable". See Wikipedia:Notability for details, and especially WP:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. Dbfirs 23:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Droop65. When it comes to mentioning that someone won an award here on Wikipedia, the standard is how notable the award itself is. Let's face it. Awards are a dime a dozen. I have one for donating 100 units of blood, which took me decades of commitment, and I am very proud of it, but it is not worthy of mention in a Wikipedia biography. If someone won the Nobel Prize, the Pulitzer Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, an Oscar, an Emmy or a Goldman Foundation "genius" grant, then no one will contest that. But if they won the Podunk County Best Hound Dog Trainer award, with a gilt synthetic ribbon, that is probably unworthy of mention here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Uploading logos and images to wikipedia

Hi,

Could someone please help me understand how one can upload a logo to wikipedia? Aren't most, if not all, logos copyrighted? So how are users able to uplaod corporation logos into the infobox of the respective wikipage?

Also how does one upload an image into Wiki Commons?

Thanks in advance!

Finivino1000 (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Finivino1000, yes, most but not all logos are copyrighted and non-free. We are able to use them under US fair use law. Use of non-free content is highly restricted by Wikipedia:Non-free content (NFC) rules, but the use of one logo in the infobox to visually identify the subject of an article is usually acceptable. NFC rules are actually made somewhat more strict than what is necessary to justify fair use in order to encourage the reusability of articles. —teb728 t c 08:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As to uploading images to Wikimedia Commons Finivino1000, you can click the Commons Wizard link at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. You can't upload non-free logos or other non-free content to Commons. —teb728 t c 08:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You might also find the step-by-step instructions which I added to the question Adding club crest to an info box below helpful.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

About Youtube video links

When it is it ok to add a link to a Youtube video? I have seen such links here and there.

For now, I have added one to the Money burning to show what Serge Gainsbourg did and where he explains his motives.

The trouble with Youtube is that anyone can upload content but this does appear to be the original footage.

The subject is current as an arts student in the UK is apparently planning to burn money this year. I might add some information about this.

-- JamesPoulson (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was illegal to burn money here in the UK!DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It probably is as in other countries. In the video from 1984 Gainsbourg said it was illegal then. I came across this article when doing research on the question. I think he's up to some social experiment as he's stated he will give to charity instead if he gets donations exceeding what he intends to burn. Anyway, coming back to the Wikipedia article I hope the video link is suitable. It's something that marked the memory of many people in France so I wanted other people to see the moment. --JamesPoulson (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"It's illegal to burn money" is a long-standing myth (it's illegal to deface money in the UK, but not to destroy it), although it is illegal in the US. You might want to point out to the art student that this was already done, very publicly, two decades ago. ‑ Iridescent 18:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no mention of the UK in the Legality section.

Yes, many people have apparently referred to the stunt carried out by the KLF. The difference here is that he is going to burn money coming from a loan so it is not his and the wording on this page is a seeming political statement. I am not sure if the act should get a mention in the article but he has been covered by Vice and in the Daily Mirror according to the link posted previously.

I also saw this poetry film featuring money burning on social media. Is this worthy of mention? --JamesPoulson (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, JamesPoulson. I have removed the link. There are a couple of separate issues here. First, external links in text are almost never allowed in Wikipedia: see WP:EL. They are allowed (in fact, encouraged) as part of references, but you presented that as a link, not a reference.

Secondly, linking to sites like YouTube, even as a reference, is allowed only if it is clear that the video has been posted in accordance with its copyright - i.e. with the explicit permission of the copyright holder. I'm not certain, but I don't get the impression that that is the case here, which is why I removed it. I have also removed the text you added before it, as (unlike the text I have left) that is not supported by a reference. If you can show clearly that the video on YouTube is not a copyright violation, then you could use it as a reference: since you would be using it to support the claim that he did burn, and his stated reasons, it would be acceptable even though it is a primary source. --ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

ColinFine there are examples of links like this on the Ahmad Shah Massoud page. That is why I wasn't certain of how to go about things.

When you say that an external link is allowed as part of the references and not a link what do you mean exactly?

About copyright, the ideal would then be, say, the official channel of Gainsbourg, that of the television channel or perhaps some historical archive?

In this case, you are right. The main reason I used that link is because of the quality of the video. Hopefully I can find something suitable.

By primary source I understand this is a case when an exception is made.

Thank you :) --JamesPoulson (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, JamesPoulson. I mean that a reference (between <ref> and </ref>, so that it will appear in the reference list at the bottom) must have sufficient bibliographic information that a reader can in principle locate it, and may also have a URL to an online location if one exists. It should always be to a reliable source, and the link must not point to a copyright violation. Part of reliability is being able to determine who put the material up: a document scanned and posted on some random website would not be regarded as reliable for any purpose; much of what is on YouTube similarly (as well as being copyright infringements).

So, to use a YouTube link as a reference, it would need to be on a channel that is clearly both reliable (authentic as to its source) and complying with copyright.

I don't know about Ahmad Shah Massoud - on a quick scan, I didn't find any external links, but if there are any they're almost certainly not allowed. --ColinFine (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

ColinFine I get you. So if it's not online or has been moved elsewhere the source can still be found using the bibliographic information. I agree with what you say about Youtube. Most content is user-submitted and only the official channels respect copyright unless it's by an artist themselves.

For the article about Massoud a quick way to find markup to Youtube videos is to use the search feature of a browser. There are two Youtube videos linked inline although they aren't used to support the article text as I had. The funeral video is very important as it shows how popular he was.

P.S: Don't want people to think I'm searching about money burning. I was actually looking up money destruction (removal of money from circulation) but it did catch passing interest :p --JamesPoulson (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Re Youtube; I am looking to place a reference in a WP article for subject who was presented with a national radio award for his work with a major star in that country, but the only link I can find is the channel's own Youtube video of the event, is this acceptable as it actually proves he received the award? Alfshire 10:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Two persons with same name confusion

Hi, I am considering a WP article on a notable composer/record producer who has had major chart hits (including Billboard) since the 1970s. However, I have discovered in 2001 another musician with the same name made an instrumental album, which also had some success. On search the only thing I can see is that the other person had no references for any instrumental or other recordings before 2001. To avoid confusion between the two people, how do I resolve this tricky issue? Regards, Alfshire Alfshire 11:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Alfshire. This is usually handled using disambiguation. Do not know as of yet how the intermediary page is done but someone here should be able to walk you through the steps. --JamesPoulson (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Alfshire, and welcome to the Teahouse. This happens all the time, and the approach is described in Wikipedia:Article titles#Disambiguation. Then first consideration is to name each article uniquely. This is normally done either by giving each a qualifier in parentheses (but if one is most notable then that one may be left plain, without a qualifier), or sometimes by adding a middle name if that is more recognizable. Then we need to facilitate readers finding their way to the right article, and basically that hinges on the number of people who share the name. If there are only two or three, then at the top of each article a Hatnote is used to redirect readers who might have come to the wrong page - for an example, see Brian Schmidt. If there are more than about four people with that name, a separate disambiguation page is set up to direct the reader: for example, see William Smith. So in your case, your new article might be called something like "Lorem Ipsum (composer)". I hope that makes sense; I seem to be having trouble putting it into words clearly so please do look at the examples and I hope they will be clear. Otherwise, please come back and ask...--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the good advice everyone, Alfshire. Alfshire 15:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion, Alfshire, is to work in Draft space (use the Article Wizard to create it) and simply not bother about the ambiguity for the moment: when you submit your draft for review, and it passes, the reviewer that accepts it will move it to main space, and sort out the naming then. If you think that the overlap betwen them is enough that reviewers might not realise they are separate people, then you can add something like {{for|the composer and producer|the instrumentalist|<name of the other article>}} at the top of your draft. --ColinFine (talk)

Thanks ColinFine, I am sure some have bought the instrumentalists album thinking it was the composer/producers work and I reckon the WP reviewers may also believe the same. I have now found a note on the composer/producers record label that the instrumentalist is an impostor cashing in on his fame, of course I cannot cite this as it doesn't meet the WP criteria of other reliable sources. I don't want to get involved in any ambiguity disputes so I may take your advice and add ...... .....(composer/producer) next to his name. Alfshire 10:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Alfshire, welcome to the teahouse! As a sidenote, there is an easy way to sign your comments. You can type four tildes (~~~~) after the end of your message. Then your username and the date and time will automatically be added. Gap9551 (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Noticed that now UTC, thanks again. Alfshire 10:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleted article sounds like a "press release"

Hello - my article on Pompea Smith has been deleted because it "reads like an advertisement or press releases for her". I have many references for Pompea Smith in reliable sources and have chosen to do an article on her because of her commitment to low-income communities in a non-profit organization. Is there a specific section I could go to in order to edit the article for approval? I believe the comment that reviewer DDG wrote refers to the writing style. Any suggestions out there? THANK YOU! Lily Prigioniero (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:BIO. If you are confident that she qualifies as having notability, and can support that via reliable sources, then the AfC process is a good way to create the article via reviewed drafts, and will give you a chance and hopefully some collaborative help to develop it to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. New articles in main article space come under immediate heavy scrutiny, and need to pass many criteria to avoid being speedily deleted, but AfC drafts get a little more generous treatment, as long as it is credible to develop an encyclopaedic article on the topic and there appears to be a good faith effort to do so. Make sure that you provide your reliable sources at the earliest opportunity, so that notability can be rapidly established. The standard welcome notice on your talk page contains a number of links to useful information and guidelines about editing on Wikipedia. --Murph9000 (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

JC Gonzalez

We have been working in this page about this actor, songwriter, singer and dancer. He is a young man with talent. Please can you review and give me your feedback and help us to improve this page. Thanks :)Texancool (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

JC Gonzalez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).--ukexpat (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Texancool, if you take a look at the current deletion discussion it will be clear that editors don't consider that Gonzalez at present meets our "notability" requirements. Wikipedia is not a means to promote anyone's career, only to provide easier access to information published in independent sources about notable topics. Your words "we" and "us" are something of a concern too, as Wikipedia accounts are for use by only one person: Noyster (talk), 13:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Texancool. The basis for the articles for deletion discussion on him is lack of notability. This can only be remedied if the type of sources needed to demonstrate notability exist. What we want are reliable, secondary sources, entirely independent of the topic, that treat the topic in substantive detail. Citing such sources shows that the world has taken note of the topic, and allows an article to be written with verifiable information that requires no original research for its content. Please understand that no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability – the sources we require either exist or they do not. People appear to have looked and not found them. So, if you can find sources, do so quickly (as the AfD is already at seven days), cite them and then note your discoveries and additions at the AfD debate. If you cannot, then chalk this one up to a learning experience about what to do and not to do when writing a Wikipedia article. In short, gather good sources first; write only using what they verify (without copying their words); and decide in the first place whether to write on a topic only after determining that the requisite sources exist. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:A. C. C. Cigars

I reviewed Draft:A. C. C. Cigars and declined it as reading like an advertisement. It was previously likewise declined, with the comment “Spam”. User: SaschaIllyvich then wrote to my talk page: "Hey Robert, What specifically is triggering this response? This is NOT an advertisement. I don't work for the company nor do I have any affiliation with them. How can I get this through Wiki? Thanks for your help, mate. Sascha "

Can some other experienced editor either agree that it should be accepted or advise her as to whether it can be improved and how? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help mate. I thought I pulled all the ad-like content out of the article and I did model it after successful cigar company wiki entries. I was told in a chat that "sometimes those entries aren't good examples." If that's so, why aren't they pulled or cited?

I really appreciate it.

The OTHER thing that would help me would be to grant me access as a content contributor to the Cigar Wiki where this article would better be suited. I've applied, but that was months ago.

Again, thank you.

SaschaIllyvich (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, SachaIllyvich. This is far from the worst I've seen, but it does still read like an ad, for two reasons. The main one is the detailed list of products. If the reader wants a detailed list of products, they can follow the link to the company's website. A Wikipedia article should only summarise, and probably only mention those products which independent reliable sources have written about. The other is certain evaluative statements, such as "brought with him generations of Cuban expertise": a statement like this should never appear in any Wikipedia article, unless it is directly derived from what an independent source has said. Even "family-run" might seem like a statement of fact, but if you think about it, it is still a bit of peacock language|, appropriate to a promotional brochure but not an encyclopaedia.

The reason I would not accept this article as it stands is that it is nowhere near sufficiently referenced, and I am not sure that it contains enough independent sources even to establish that the company is notable: the first two references are not about the company at all; I haven't looked at the other two, but from the title I would guess that the Smokeshop article at least, and perhaps the other one too, is written from a press release or interview and so not independent. Quite a number of statements in the draft might be challenged, and so need to be cited inline to reliable sources: The claim that "In every cigar-producing country of the world, except Cuba, the breed of tobacco most widely used for premium cigar wrappers is Ecuadorian Sumatra" is, in my view, original research, and must not appear in a Wikipedia article unless it is supported by a citation to a source which credibly makes that claim. (I am not disputing the claim itself, by the way; just saying that an article should not say it in Wikipedia's voice, but only by citing a source which says it). Even more problematic is the claim that "Jose Aray Marin, founder of the Aray tobacco family, was the first to crossbreed the Cubano variety with Sumatra varieties" - this is not only original research, but also promotional, and needs to be supported not just to a reliable source but to one independent of Martin (again, I am not challenging the claim, but only discussing its appearance in the article).

What the article desperately needs is a number of references to reliable sources independent of ACC (which excludes anything based on interviews or press releases from them). The article should then be written nearly 100% from those independent sources - if only the company has said something, it probably shouldn't go in the article (or at the very least, it should be covered as "Martin says that ..."

In answer to your other questions: the many bad articles have not been pulled because nobody has got round to it. We have over five million articles, and all editing is done by volunteers. If somebody finds an article which shouldn't be there, or needs major improvement, they can leave it, or add maintenance tags to point up its deficiencies, or they can work on it (which might be proposing it for deletion) - the last option may take significant work.

Looking at your draft, I see that it links to Ecuadorian Sumatra Tobacco which in my opinion has as many problems as this one. I may go and add some maintenance tags to it.

Finally - The Cigar Wiki has nothing whatever to do with Wikipedia (they merely use the same software which Mediawiki have made freely available) and nobody here can help you get access to it. --ColinFine (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Help.

My page Allama Abdul Malek Halim and Al-jamiatul Arabia Lil Baneena Wal Banaat Haildhar Anwara are going to be deleted. Plz go ther and correct it.its very nesessery files for bangladeshHamdan Munir (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I would think that this is not the section for this type of help but I do hope that instead of unilaterally deleting articles so soon after being notified that others will provide just as speedy guidance to improve what remains of these articles since WP English has so much more work needed to help sub-continent subject matters improve to the level that western articles are that explain that society/culture.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hamdan Munir: I would advise you to leave it to be deleted, and then recreate it as Draft:Haildhar Madrasah. Making it a draft rather than a live article will give you a chance to get it ready, without risk of deletion before you have finished. And as this is English-language Wikipedia, a name in English is preferable. Maproom (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

editing

how do i put images in a gallery

==Gallery==
<gallery>
??????????
</gallery>

Hunter gjp (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hunter gjp. There are a few pages that provide relevant material and instruction here. Please see Help:Gallery tag, Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries, and the template documentation at {{Gallery}}. The format of the tags you placed above (which I tweaked slightly so they can be seen) is essentially correct. As you will see at the syntax section of gallery tag help page, you just need to add between the gallery tags above the full names of existing images, though there are various ways to modify the default display. Be aware that many users have difficulties where they attempt to manually type the names, rather than copy and paste them. If you get one letter wrong in any way, including capitalization, the image will not be recognized and called to the gallery. Also, please be careful that you are only including suitably free images in the gallery, such as those from the Wikimedia Commons – fair use images are rarely appropriate in galleries. Anyway, here's a very basic gallery, which you can view in edit mode to see how it was placed:

• 
• 
• 
• 

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Hunter gjp (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Google Book references - small print.

Hi, I've found plenty of references in Google Books for a subject I'm considering, but the pages shown are not complete, or too small to read - making citations difficult, how do I get around this? Alfshire 17:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

How to deal with persistent non-registered spammer/vandal

On Colour recovery, someone using various IP addresses (178.71.158.64 / 178.71.135.235 / 178.71.130.124 / 178.71.137.112 at least) keeps adding information about a "secret" colour recovery process by Solar Green. The discussion on the talk page seems to agree that at the very least there do not exist any reliable sources for this information; moreover, based on the talk discussion it seems quite likely that the person making the changes is the same person who created the Solar Green website, which is the only source that exists at all for the topic. I and other editors have been reverting these changes. There is another, unrelated edit (removing excessive italicisation), which does not appear to actually be in dispute, that has been caught up in the ensuing series of reverts.

What is the appropriate course of action in this case? So far no one has violated the three revert rule, but at this point the repeated edits adding unsourced information and arbitrarily reverting an undisputed edit are really becoming spam/vandalism, and edit warring does not seem like the right approach.

- cpcallen (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey cpcallen. I have semi-protected the article for ten days. We'll see if that fosters any discussion and production of any reliable sources verifying these persistent edits, though it looks like a clear cut case for promotion by someone involved with the material. Protection can be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (WP:RFPP). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! - cpcallen (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Article approval

My article has been declined a couple of times. Im not sure if its the content of the piece thats not correct or whether its the sources. Ive added lots of credible, reliable sources to the article which validate the content - so im unsure where im going wrong! JDoe2016 (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

In the future, when asking about an article, please provide its name, Draft:Vrumi. Read the comments by the reviewers. They say that, although the references are from reliable sources, they don't establish corporate notability. It might be helpful to ask the reviewers, at their talk pages, to explain their declines here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Article got speedily deleted, flagged for Vandalism (G3), but it's not a hoax

I wrote my first article about a social phenomenon that exists at my college because when I searched for it I found that there was no article already. Perhaps I wrote it too humorously and thus it got flagged, but it is not a hoax or a joke. People legitimately talk about the president's hair all the time (separate from the way that the talk about the president herself, who is also talked about a lot), and it has gotten to be more well-known than several bands I know. What can I do to get this article back up? Jampot (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, from the sound of what you have said here (remember, I can't see the article), it does not sound even remotely like something appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. I sincerely doubt that it would qualify as having WP:NOTABILITY and good WP:RS to support the notability. Has there ever been an article written about it by a professional journalist and published in a respected national newspaper? It's not the official Wikipedia standard, but if a professional journalist wouldn't report on it, it's probably not ever going to be suitable for Wikipedia. Unless you can make a good case for it having WP:NOTABILITY, it will not happen. --Murph9000 (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like maybe the wrong tag was used, but it sounds like it should have been deleted. Maybe A11- obviously made up and not notable should have been used instead. Either way, this thing doesn't sound like it's notable enough for Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

For reference, the article seems to be Sandra Gray's Hair- guessing there's never going to be a notable article under that name. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

See also, WP:NFT, which explains how you could create the notability (with vast effort in the real world). At one time, WP consensus about the iPhone was that it did not have notability, so it got deleted! Basically, get an entire nation (or the planet) talking about it, and you can have a WP article without a problem, but WP will not assist in achieving that. --Murph9000 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear TehJampot and a very sincere welcome to the Teahouse. FYI the article on Kylo Ren was deleted over and over for lack of notability, etc. until it stuck. Then it quickly became the 4th most popular article on the English Wikipedia once it stuck. There is also an article on hotel toilet paper folding, nose-picking, etc. and those articles have stuck. Good luck in your efforts. Hang in there. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Mike McMullen

Mike McMullen edited Mike McMullen, and he needs a bit of help with the wikimarkup for references. Please do not use scary WP:COI templates. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

He shouldn't be editing the article. He should be requesting edits at the talk page, Talk: Mike McMullen. If he needs help on wikimarkup for references on some other article, we can give it to him. If he requests the edits at the talk page, an experienced editor can add the references. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done, though the page could use some further TLC.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, you are awesome! The Quixotic Potato (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm new, and I would like some information.

I would like a rundown of how Wikipedia editing works, and how I could edit better and more professionally. EditingJay (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a fairly huge and open-ended question. I have dropped one of the larger standard welcome messages on your talk page, which has a large number of links to helpful information. Please have a look at that and see if it provides what you would like to know. If you have any specific questions now, or still have questions after reviewing that welcome message, please do ask them here. --Murph9000 (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

A good question that ought to have a simple answer. I am struggling with the same thing. A couple other users have very kindly come to my aid, but it is really not a substitute for proper documentation. There are some documents like Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts but I do not know how to systematically find them. Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Tell us the specific things you are still looking for, or even the broad areas of documentation, Prof, and I'm sure people here will be happy to try to point you in the right direction. In general, the documentation is mostly all there somewhere, it's more commonly a question of finding the specific thing you are looking for. --Murph9000 (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@SonicXtremeXD: @Retired Pchem Prof: All documentation or help pages on the Wikipedia start with either Wikipedia: (or the short form WP:) or Help: . If you type WP:Whatever you are looking for or Help:Whatever you are looking for in the general search box up in the top right-hand corner, something is bound to be suggested. The WP: and Help: work as kind of prefix for all documentation. As far as I know there is no general index of all these pages other than perhaps the catagories they are sorted in. Try it out with some things you wonder about and see the results.

Another way of getting introduced to how to edit here is to do the tutorial mentioned at the top of this page where it says: Play The Wikipedia Adventure to learn how to edit in about an hour. w.carter-Talk 19:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

For more detail there is The Missing Manual.--ukexpat (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

On the Greek Alphabet page the word "been" is missing

In this line "In both Ancient and Modern Greek, the letters of the Greek alphabet have fairly stable and..." Between have and fairly should be the word been. Because the page is locked no one can fix it. After an hour of trying to figure it out I am posting here. It seems ridiculously hard to fix stuff on wikipedia. Tekland (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You need to read the whole sentence, which says "In both Ancient and Modern Greek, the letters of the Greek alphabet have fairly stable and consistent symbol-to-sound mappings, making pronunciation of words largely predictable." The words "stable" and "consistent" are adjectives which apply to "sound mappings". You are reading it as if the word "stable" applied to "letters", and as if the "and" were leading on to a separate clause, which it doesn't. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Tekland, welcome to the Teahouse. The page is "semi protected", so can only be edited by people with a longer editing history. This is a necessary protection for some pages, due to persistent problematic editing. I have looked at the page, and I believe that you are referring to the first paragraph of the Sound values section. As far as I can see, the text is correct as currently written. It is not talking about changes over a period of time (as would be the case if the word "been" was inserted), but the pronunciation of words, i.e. the sound of each letter in different contexts. In English, for example, the letter 'g' has a completely different sound in "growl" compared with "enough". That sentence is saying that Greek has far fewer cases of that type of confusing variation. I did study ancient Greek many decades ago, and I believe that what is written there is accurate (although my ancient language skills are really very rusty these days, and I certainly never was an expert in the subject). --Murph9000 (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Green number in parentheses

On my list of user contributions, the first thing on each entry is the time stamp. Then, I see the diff and hist buttons. After that, there's a number that is green and in parentheses. What is this? What does it mean? --Nicolás Macri (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Nicolás, welcome to the Teahouse. That number is the size of the edit, in bytes. It can also be red, if the edit made the article smaller. Larger changes are in bold (I forget exactly what the threshold is, I think it's something like more than 500 or 1000 bytes for bold). --Murph9000 (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Nicolás Macri (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Advice on how to read the contributions page is given at Help:User contributions. - David Biddulph (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

How can I dispute a decision made by an editor to deny a page because he/she feels the person is not noteworthy?

Hello,

My name is Ted Gehring. I am a Ford's Theatre Teacher Fellow who currently teaches American History in St. Francis, MN. This past summer, I had a chance to study under some of our country's best Civil War historians during a NEH Scholarship experience at Ford's Theatre.

While completing my course work, I repeatedly came across the name of an African American servant who played a major role in foiling the attempted assassination of William H. Seward, as well as the capture and conviction of Lewis Powell. Bell attempted to turn Powell out, witnessed the Powell attack Seward's son (Frederick), obtained help from a nearby military headquarters, returned in time to get a make on the assassin's get away horse and give chase, later picked Powell out of the police line up, and gave important eye witness military tribunal testimony led to Powell's guilty verdict at a time when black testimony was widely seen as inadmissible in court.

While Bell's story and picture is present on the front page of period newspapers, and in the military tribunal testimony, he has been mainly written out of the story because he was black. People who played a lesser role in this event have a Wikipedia page (for example, Frances Adeline Seward).

To help rectify the heroic role William Bell played in this major historic event, my students researched and wrote the Bell page which I have been trying to have published. However, our page has been denied because my editor believes Bell is not noteworthy. This is ridiculous. According to the Wikipedia page, a person should not be included if all of the following 3 criteria are not met.

1.If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

    - Bell's major contribution to US history is tied to the Seward assassination, and Lincoln Assassination Conspiracy Military Tribunal

2.If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Bell's role in the event was front page news during his time period which is odd considering the time period in which he lived. Blacks were often not written about, trivialized, and/or marginalized due to period racism. If his role is not rectified, how can he ever not remain a low-profile individual?

3.If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. Bell's role is both well documented in period newspapers, tribunal testimony, and current history works by leading Civil War historians that have written on the topic. Furthermore, Bell's testimony is more extensive than other white people of privilege from the time who have been given a Wikipedia page (Frances Adeline Seward for one). Like many heroic African Americans of his time, Bell did not receive a metal for his heroism like Seward's white body guard George F. Robinson who was present probably due to period racism that existed. Because Bell was not awarded a metal for his actions like Robinson should Bell not be included? (Robinson has his own Wikipedia page as well)

I can site Bell in more secondary sources on the topic if this is helpful. My class really could use help here.

- Yours truly, Mr. Ted Gehring and his 7th Grade Class 96.3.0.200 (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. It would help if you could give us a wikilink to the page that has been deleted, or to the draft that has been declined. One point which I would make is that "WP:other stuff exists" is not normally a strong argument to use. - David Biddulph (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the draft is Draft:William H. Bell, submitted by Ted.gehring (talk · contribs). --Murph9000 (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

A quick Google search turns up some additional potential references: [1]

Ted, my gut feeling on this is that you simply have to be both patient and persistent. I understand your frustration, but Wikipedia's policies on this are normally handled rather strictly, and your case does not appear to be significantly unusual in that regard. It seems to me that there should be books and articles in those search results which can be cited to help prove notability. I think the issue isn't really about whether Mr Bell has notability, it's about convincingly proving it, achieving verifiability through well cited reliable sources. That's how I interpret the most recent message declining the submission. To me, that suggests that the article's content is basically ok, it's primarily the references which are the problem, and you simply need to try to add more citations to support significant statements in the article. I believe that if you add more references, including multiple references to the same point (for Wikipedia, there's basically no such thing as too many references, as long as they are good references), you will probably ultimately succeed.

--Murph9000 (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Requesting help for an editor who seems to be editing in good-faith, but struggling

The Teahouse helped me quite a bit awhile back, so I thought I'd bring this here. User:Wikihil123 seems, at least to me, to be editing in good faith, but is not properly using reliable sources. There is now an open thread at ANI, where another more experienced user has asked that he be banned. Would a Teahouse regular be willing to step in and try to help this editor become a better contributor? Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 17:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note: The editor has now been blocked for 1 week for "incompetence." While I feel that's a fairly punitive action, I still hope that someone from this board will step in and help this editor become productive. Thus far, most of the experienced editors that have posted to Wikihil123's talkpage have been much less friendly than you all were when I asked for help at this page quite awhile back. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You are very kind to try to help this editor, Hallward's Ghost. I would be happy to assist them if they show any sign of understanding the problems with their contributions. Many editors have pointed out the problems, and so far, they show no sign of taking the concerns seriously and trying to do better. A basic level of competence is required here, though perfection isn't. For example, some editors add good content but are poor spellers. Other editors happily correct spelling errors. This particular editor seems unwilling or incapable of making any truly useful contributions to the encyclopedia, at least at this time. Adding a reference that does not support the claim is a major problem, for example. They seem incapable or unwilling to make the effort to even approximate a proper encyclopedic prose writing style. These are major issues, and not a petty matter by any means. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I must confess, then, that I've apparently misread the situation entirely. Where I saw genuine confusion, and a good faith (albeit misguided) attempt to add burial information to articles, others see something more nefarious. Since I seem to be a lonely chorus of one, I will bow out and leave the situation be. Thank you for looking into it. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 08:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)