Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 452

Archive 445

←

Archive 450

Archive 451

Archive 452

Archive 453

Archive 454

Archive 455

Closed Oswald Page

With SO MUCH DOUBT around the FACTS of Lee Harvey Oswald, why side with the "Government Story?" As long as there are hidden, "classified" docs around this issue PROTECTED by the government: THE PAGE YOU POST SHOULD AVOID ANY HARD LINES, STATED "FACTS" such as calling Oswald "the assassin" or "sniper" who "killed Kennedy..." Please contact if anyone wants HARD PROOF putting government theory in doubt. Meantime: STOP SUPPORTING AN UNSUBSTANTIATED GOVERNMENT VIEW THAT SLANDERS A MAN, HIS LIFE AND OFFENDS ALL LOVED ONES ASSOCIATED WITH HIM. --Bill Watkins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billwatkinsword (talk • contribs) 03:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE, WP:GEVAL, and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Wikipedia only summarizes professionally published mainstream academic and journalistic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Professionally published stuff abounds on both sides of JFK debate. When I make an edit, citing testimony or proof from published work, it is immediately changed back by a trollish figure, suspiciously like a government troll.

Next, could you or Wikipedia define "mainstream?" Does that mean government-approved? Is this editing parameter in your "about" page?

Why this is so important is that the credibility of your site is on the line.

Are you for facts, or blanks in the absence of facts? Or are you for pushing an unsubstantiated view because it came from the government?

p.s. If all relevant polls show a majority of people disbelieving government/Wikipedia view, wouldn't THAT be mainstream? --Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billwatkinsword (talk • contribs) 03:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Billwatkinsword: I'm afraid you've come to Wikipedia with more or less the wrong attitude in terms of building an encyclopedia, or at least it seems that way. There's nothing wrong with criticizing the government, but Wikipedia is not a platform to do so. Using all caps in discussion is also considered poor form here. If you want to add or revise claims on Oswald or Kennedy based on reliable sources (i.e. ones that contain some kind of editorial oversight, and not self-published books or blogs), can propose changes with an appropriate level of weight, are prepared to discuss the merits your changes with other editors on the appropriate talk page, and are perhaps willing to compromise and work with others, that's the kind of attitude that will make editing a whole lot easier. Otherwise, you're going to find it very difficult to work here, and I don't want you to waste your time. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It appears that the last edut that you made to Lee Harvey Oswald was about ten months ago. If you want to discuss changes to that article, propose them on Talk: Lee Harvey Oswald. (At no point did you use the talk page.) Be prepared to discuss. Be civil and concise. If discussion is inconclusive, read dispute resolution and follow one of the procedures listed there. Also, if you want to engage in serious discussion, avoid the use of ALL UPPER CASE, which is considered SHOUTING, and is generally ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Your claim that it's a government troll fails WP:Assume good faith and smells of paranoia.

The government can't even pave the bloody roads or properly fund schools, they hardly have time to somehow convince the majority of historians, forensics analysts, and other academics to pretend to be anti-authoritarian and value discovery while hiding something that would revolutionize their careers. The idea of government approval is just ridiculous. By mainstream, I mean "the overwhelming majority of experts in relevant fields." It should be obvious that conspiracy theories are not mainstream, no matter how much you stuff the echo chamber.

Our site has no credibility -- we fail our own standards for reliable sourcing by design.

The facts about the JFK assassination presented in the article are the most in line with Occam's razor -- they make the fewest paranoid and unproven assumptions about the world. Are there any gaps? Maybe, maybe not, depending on how much you're paying attention. But you can't fill in a 2 millimeter gap with an army of ten-foot tall imaginary government monsters (governmonsters?).

Polls are absolutely useless when determining facts because the general public are idiots (a quarter of Americans and a third of Europeans think the sun goes around the earth). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding ALL CAPS and style, if Wikipedia does not support free speech, obviously I'm barking up the wrong tree. lol

I will pursue the libel angle, if needs be.

To write in clear English that Oswald was the "assassin who killed Kennedy" must be backed up, indeed.

E. Howard Hunt and lawyers thought they could bully a libel conviction through on Marchetti and "The Spotlight" in 1978, when Marchetti claimed in writing that Hunt and CIA were involved in JFK murder.

They LOST, when Mark Lane proved Marchetti right. ( Mark Lane, "Last Word" 44-63, Skyhorse Press)

Are you ready for libel court? --Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billwatkinsword (talk • contribs) 04:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

That appears to be a legal threat. It will get your Wikipedia account blocked. Maproom (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

And it has - Arjayay (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

PhD Dissertations as Reliable Sources and as Evidence for Notablity

What are the general Wikipedia policies on PhD Dissertations (from real universities) as Reliable Sources and as evidence of Notablity? Carl Henderson (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, @Carl Henderson:, and welcome to the TeaHouse. The answer to your question is a definite, unequivocal "yes and no". For more details, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If you still have questions, please ask again.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Public transport routes in Adelaide

Header inserted by ColinFine (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Evening all,

Is there a way to report other members? I'm having a problem with List of public transport routes in Adelaide, in that being every time I try to update it, he immediately reverts it. The page is now at the stage where is is showing incorrect information, but he still reverts it. Any help appreciated.

Ryan 868 (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

No, Ryan 868, you don't "report" other members for editing in good faith: you engage with Charlesdrakew on the article's talk page and attempt to reach consensus. In my opinion, for what it's worth, most of that article should be removed as non-encyclopaedic: WP:NOTGUIDE. --ColinFine (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there any controversy around these routes? A motive to control information on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billwatkinsword (talk • contribs) 03:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason you're applying conspiracy theorist logic to an obviously mundane content dispute? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory is much more fun. Now, what secret group wants to suppress knowledge of where in suburban Adelaide the no. T843 bus stops? Maproom (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a splinter group of the Canadian Cabal ? ;-} - Arjayay (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

How can I Post my article

Hi My name is Thompson Iyamu I am the author of The PLayers Code . The players code is a book i wrote last year 2015 and i am looking for a way to post an article about it on wikipedia . I have posted a few articles recently but they have been deleted. Please a little help would be appreciated. The Players Code (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising hoarding for you to publicise your book. You need to read about promotion and conflict of interest. If your book becomes notable in Wikipedia's terms, someone without a conflict of interest will write about it. You are, of course, welcome to edit Wikipedia articles on subjects where you don't have a conflict of interest. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Article Needs Help

Hi, would someone be willing to review the article I'm contributing to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Carolyn_Pollack_Jewelry

It's been flagged for deletion because I've tried resubmitting too many times (read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Carolyn_Pollack_Jewelry )

I'm actively trying to improve it, but I guess I've fallen short. Any suggestions would be incredibly appreciated.

Shenlyism (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Shenlyism. Unless you have a conflict of interest in promoting this particular company you should be willing to work on other articles until you have an understanding of what is deemed notable for inclusion.Charles (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It may be best if you start from scratch. Try to make as long an article as possible just summarizing as few (but at least three) news articles about the company as possible. These sources should not be connected to the company, but the articles should still be specifically about the company. This will help establish notability. If there are not enough sources to do this, you may need to consider that the company isn't notable enough for the website. If you can find enough sources, avoid using any company pages in the first draft and for as long as possible after, because that creates the appearance that the article is really an advertisement. After the article is approved, then you can try expanding using other sources (as long as they still meet our reliable sourcing standards). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both. After discussing with chat and reading your comments, I will give it one more go with improved sources and editing. After, I'll ask other editors if they would review (without submitting it again) and if it's still not up to par, I'll let it go until there are better references to improve quality. Shenlyism (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Many new editors spend a long time "rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic" i.e. trying to improve the article by editing what they already have, rather than concentrating on the fundamental problem, of WP:Notability. Although only an essay Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability may explain the concept better. - Arjayay (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Flag icons

Hello all. I've been trying to keep Star Alliance as a Good Article (It's going through a GAN right now). I got a copyedit from the GOCE about 8 months ago, and the flag icons in the tables were removed per WP:TOOMANY. However, people have constantly been adding them back. What's your opinion on the situation? Should they be kept or removed? Cheers! MrWooHoo (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@MrWooHoo: Hey MrWooHoo. Sounds like you should open a discussion on the talk page! And, failing participation there, consider opening up a formal Request for comments on the matter. IMO, I'm not sure how I fall on the matter, but I acknowledge that clutter is a definite concern there. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

More at MOS:FLAG.--ukexpat (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Versions in Chinese

I maintain the page of T'ang Haywen. So now and since T'ang was Chinese I would like to add the Chinese language in traditional and simplified. How do I do that ? Thanks in advance, Chinaparis Chinaparis (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You go to Chinese Wikipedia and (I guess) classical Chinese Wikipedia, and create articles there, just as you did here in English Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if it is possible (allowed by wikipedia) to add under each paragraph of the english version, its translation in Chinese. One good reason for this would be to allow the reader of both languages to check if the translation, from English to Chinese is accurateChinaparis (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there Chinaparis. I'm afraid we only permit English language articles on English Wikipedia, and we certainly don't have parallel article text in another language. As Maproom says, there are Chinese Wikis available if you want to work in Chinese. 对不起!  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Chinaparis if someone wants to read the Chinese version of the article, there are links to other languages' versions on the left side of the page. At least that is how it appears for me.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

And I have now checked. There is a French version. Once you create the Chinese version, that will be linked too.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Links to other language's equivalent articles are not automatically provided. They used to be done by local interlanguage links, but now are usually provided by Wikidata. One severe limitation of the latter is that it can't cope if there isn't a one-to-one mapping between articles; such as when one language has one article on a subject which is split between two articles in another language. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is part of my text missing?

See here for what I mean: User:Azcolvin429/testing

When you edit the page, more text is visible in the editor that isn't showing up on the page.

Even a ref check says there are no errors. There are no open-ended refs that I have noticed. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 22:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit: The text has appeared but the refs are missing. I cannot figure out what I am doing wrong! A. Z. Colvin • Talk 22:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

SOLVED: received help from another medium A. Z. Colvin • Talk 23:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the answer to such things is usually an unterminated ref. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Uploading album covers

Hello!

I'm new using Wikipedia, this is the third or fourth time that I've edited a page and the changes I've made have been rejected, especially while uploading images. Where can I get copyright free images?

Mtvazquez40Mtvazquez40 (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It sounds as if you want copyright-free images of copyrighted artwork. This isn't possible (unless the resolution is so low as to make the image useless). Maproom (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about "useless" - we have lots of album covers, in order to identify the album. The free-use rationale requires the image of an album cover to have one side less than 300 px - Amazon and other websites usually use 240 x 240 px or 250 x 250 px - which are ideal, and can just be copied, as they are not Amazon's copyright. Please ensure the covers are uploaded to en.wikipedia - not commons.wikimedia - as commons can only accept copyright free images. - Arjayay (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Arjayay, for the correction. I had forgotten that en:wikipedia is more tolerant. Maproom (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Pictures

How do I get a picture of mine to be on Wikimedia commons? Awsomegamer75795 (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

As long as the picture really is "yours" i.e. you took it, you are prepared to release it so that anyone can use it for (almost) any purpose, and it is on your computer, click "Upload file" under "Tools" in the column on the left, then "Commons Wizard" on the next page, and follow the instructions, - Arjayay (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

In addition to what Arjayay wrote, it is important that the item you have photographed is not itself copyrighted. Photos you take of mountains, lakes, plants, animals, historic buildings or celebrities at public appearances are fine. Photos of contemporary paintings or sculptures by others, or any published copyrighted work, cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that commons has a requirement that material uploaded "must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". See commons:Commons:Project scope, and commons:Commons:What Commons is not. --ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

page not really "deleted"

Hello. I recently authored an article ("Kenneth R. Brousseau") that was subsequently proposed for deletion. I decided to further work on the article, and in the meantime requested that the page be deleted. However, the "shell" of the page still exists - if I google the subject, I can still find the wikipedia page on it. Only, when you go to the wikipedia link you only see that the page has been deleted. Is there any way to fully remove this page? Otherwise, when people search for the subject on google and go to wikipedia link that comes up, they will only find the deletion history of the page. Or, once I re-publish the page, will it replace this "shell" of the original? Thank you! Daysofsage (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Daysofsage, it is most assuredly deleted as completely as it ever will be. We keep records of deleted pages of course. It takes some days for items to be removed from Google search results, although they seem to add almost immediately. In any case, it is a Google issue, not a Wikipedia issue. John from Idegon (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, when you recreate the page, the 1 or 2 sentences on Google will be replaced with the new one. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Google can tell the difference between a deleted and a non-deleted Wikipedia page, so once it detects the deletion (it may take several days, as John noted), it will remove the entry. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Creating an infobox

How do I create a infobox? Kidsoljah (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Kidsoljah, you can go to WP:Infobox and swipe a basic template for creation, which you then adapt to whatever parameters you want. However, be sure that the infobox you want doesn't already exist. Try searching for "Template: Infobox xxxx" or something like that. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Kidsoljah. White Arabian Filly has assumed that you mean you want to create a new type of infobox, a new infobox template. If so, their advice is right; but I suspect you want to create an infobox in an article. In that case, the easiest way is to copy one from a similar article, and change the fields as appropriate. You can see what fields are available and what they mean at Template:infobox <whatever> for the particular infobox you are using. --ColinFine (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Broken Link (Bot?)/ Deleted Article

I want to edit an article that had been previously been declined due to insufficient reference articles. I tried pulling it up several times, but the closest I seem to have come is a link to a broken link or bot or something. The article is for American Music Producer Tommy Hittz. When I edit this article, am I only allowed to summarize the information from the references, or can I add more information if I know firsthand? 2602:306:3BF8:F600:2DF1:7E0A:8648:83B6 (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. A Wikipedia article should summarize what reliable sources say about the topic. Adding information that you know firsthand is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If you try to go to Draft:Tommy Hittz, it shows that this draft did exist, but was deleted by RHaworth in August 2015, with the message: "(G13: Abandoned AfC submission – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND/G13)". --ColinFine (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Stuck in special characters

I am having a problem on commons which means that I cannot sign with four tildes. I am not familiar with the commons version of the Teahouse but I suspect the problem is not specific to commons rather to me! [1] The colons at the start of a line are also not displayed or inserted correctly. I think I must have got stuck in special characters and cannot work out how to escape. Most embarrassing, help please. SovalValtos (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi SovalValtos. I looked at what occurred but I was hoping for some clarification of context. Assuming you are using a relatively standard QWERTY Roman alphabet computer keyboard (if not clarify that), are you saying that when you try to place colons by hitting shift and the colon key to the right of the "L" key, you place triangular IPA colons like this ː rather than standard colons? And when you press shift plus the key for tildes – just above the tab key and to the left of the 1 key, it somehow does not work? What happens when you try?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget that the position of some keys will vary according to the keyboard layout. On my UK keyboard the tilde is shift + hash, on the right, not at the top left as you describe. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Please note I am likely to use words in a non technical and perhaps confusing manner. Replying first of all to Fuhghettaboutit. There is no problem in my current editing on the Teahouse. The problem is only on commons. I am using a relatively standard QWERTY key board on a Toshiba laptop which is just over 3 years old. I have just checked and the problem is evident on other pages on commons, but I shall refer to the page[2] for my explanation, and to the section Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boron5 a Boston terrier.jpg where my edits have been made.

The first visible abnormality shows when I press the 'edit' at the end of the title line of the Boron5 section. The edit box that appears, unusually has a sub box at the top, with several lines of symbols. Currently 'symbols' is selected within that box to the left, though I can change to IPA or Latin.

If I then place the cursor at the bottom of the edit box in the usual manner to start a new edit, and then press together shift and the semicolon keys a faint version of a colon appears. If I then repeat shift + semicolon the faint colon is changed to showing just the top dot rather than adding the expected second faint colon to the right of the first one. A third press of shift + semicolon returns the first colon to two dots and completes the second faint colon. The faint colon could be what you describe as a 'triangular IPA colons' but I can only see the triangles after magnifying the page considerably and I find the page you linked, triangular IPA colons like this ː confusing.

Tildes. After completing the text of my edit the first press of shift + # gives what looks like a very small tilde up high in the place where an apostrophe would normally go. A second press of shift + # moves it down to where a comma would normally appear. Even when I had four of them and I tried to save the page, it did not have the effect of signing.

There were further problems when I tried to make a strike through, but I will not go into that now unless you want as I think the problem must be based around having accessed the symbols box, activated it, and not knowing how to get out of it.

David Biddulph I do not think it can be due to my keyboard layout as I am having no problems here. Luckily so as I would not be allowed to ask a question without being able to type four tildes!

Thank you both for your time. SovalValtos (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey again SovalValtos . I don't have the slightest clue what could be causing that nor how it could be stuck and I would think virus, except it's too weird that it only does it there. My half-assed technical advice would be to clear your cache, dump all cookies, restart and if that doesn't fix it, post to the computing section of the reference desk with the context you posted here. You might also tell them the browser you're using and your operating system. Tech gurus also hang out at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), though I suppose technically its; for Wikipedia questions, but I doubt anyone would jump down your throat for posting about a Commons issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Again please do not underestimate how dim I can be. It could be something as simple as not knowing to click on the red X to close a page! I have found how to get rid of the box at the top of the edit box. There is an arrow at the left of 'Special characters' which toggled them out of sight. However the weird colons persist in being generated. I think I have completely cleared the cache including Favorites website data. I do not know how to 'dump all cookies'. I have Windows 8.1 and Internet Explorer 11.0.28 . I have a paid version of Avira anti virus, recently renewed. SovalValtos (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I have now posted to the computing section of the reference desk. SovalValtos (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Is Ancestry a reliable source?

Since Ancestry tend to data-mine from sources such as censuses, parish registers and so on, are they a reliable source? An example is (in respect of Morvil), Ancestry gives Robert de Vale's dates as 1250 - 1303. Can I cite that if it's on an Ancestry public page, even though they do not cite a source themselves? Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Much of Ancestry.com's content is user-provided, so not reliable. See Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Ancestry.com. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

... and even when they transcribe census records, transcription errors are fairly common. Dbfirs 12:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Improve article to show its notability

Hi there,

I would like to get some support on my draft article.

I have modified its content and references according to reviewers´comments. The subject is very relevant for malaria eradication and I would like to know what sources I need to add to show its notability.

Additionally, I would like to know if there is anything else I could do to improve the article and get it published.

Thank you very much MESA po (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

MESA po, the comments of LaMona are to the point, this will be a tricky topic to get accepted. The only way to do it will be to find and cite substantial additional coverage in third-party reliable sources. The article would need to clearly establish that the program itself, and not just the research being done under it, is notable. Links to the papers, and an indication of their authorship, would also be helpful. DES ^(talk) 18:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much DES I have addressed the points that you raised. There are among the sources cited peer reviewed publications, different news items as well as a statement from Margaret Chan, who is the director of WHO. Would you mind leeting me know what additional sources would contribute to show that the topic is notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MESA po (talk • contribs) 14:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Assistance with declined article

Hello:

I submitted an article about Indie Musician and Musicpreneur Nate Maingard, which was declined for numerous reasons. I then submitted some questions as to the reasons why on the Articles Creation Page, but no one has replied. I'm hoping that someone here will.

Although a professional journalist, this is my first time submitting an article, although I've edited bits of other articles here and there.

I'd like some guidance as to the issues with this kind of performer and wiki-rules, as well as some assistance in revising the article in order to resubmit. I don't want to do so until it is correct along wiki lines. But I also have found that quite a few others have had similar issues when it comes to submitting or writing articles for musicians like this.

Unfortunately, as with most indie performers who prefer to follow their own indie path, some of the cites I used have been considered unacceptable. There is a problem insomuch as these kinds of performers rarely chase traditional PR. There was also a statement that the artist does not meet the various criterion for a Wiki Article. I believe he does meet more than one of the criterion required to have a wiki page. Nearly all of the platforms who review these kinds of artists are themselves indie-platforms. Although I respect the rules wiki has set, I also notice that these have been hotly debated when it comes to some of the reasons the article was declined, and in fact Wiki DOES state that in terms of certain kinds of artists, exceptions can be made.

The reasons given were (please understand that I am not debating these reasons, but am asking for guidance and consideration based on my perspective and the issues facing this sub-culture):

1) "Do not use the person's own works as references."

Unless I am misreading the wiki policy on this, the Attribution Page states:

"Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as: it is relevant to their notability (In this case I believe it is) it is not contentious; (It is not) it is not unduly self-serving; (I suppose this depends on the editor's perspective - I'd appreciate a review of the article and some feedback) it does not involve claims about third parties; (This may be a snag on my part in some places within the article) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; (I don't believe it does) there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; (there is not) the article is not based primarily on such sources (it is not, although I do use such sources quite a bit)"

2) "Also, you cannot use personal sites (Boundless world) or social media as references."

• The personal site in question links not to an article but to an interview. Is the issue here merely the type of site, or the interview itself? I'm not finding any articles on Wiki that suggest one cannot cite a video interview as evidence of what someone has said.
• Also, the only Social Media reference pertains to the artists musicpreneur success thus far. Surely there is no greater evidence than a link to the artists actual SM page (in this case, Twitter) as well as to an indie article that also covers this same topic? Again, some guidance is appreciated.
• Finally, as stated on the attribution page, "Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources...it is relevant to their notability." In this case it certainly is. Which is why that statement from the editor is perplexing.

2) Mention was also made that I should "See wp:NMUSIC for the criteria for notability of musicians." That criteria includes:

• Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre. [He has been a number of times.]
• Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. [He has and this brings me back to the sort of cites I used. The hipster sub-culture is almost exclusively catered to by the very kind of sites that have been disputed as being notable and/or reliable.]

3) My apologies if I have not formatted this correctly. There also appears to be some debate about that as well and I find it a bit confusing. Thank you in advance for any assistance that can be offered. Tal1962 (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The way you have formatted your question seems fine to me. But it's rather long, and it would have been helpful if you'd started by saying that it's about Draft:Nate_Maingard.

As usual, the problem is with references to establish that the subject is notable. The draft currently has 33 references. If you believe that any of these are to reliable independent published sources with significant discussion about him, you could save everyone's time by telling us which ones. Maproom (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, delete any references that a reviewer or Teahouse regular says are not reliable. In particular, delete the references to the subject's own works and to any web interviews with the subject. Interviews are only reliable if they have been published in reliable sources such as magazines with reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for taking time to reply. It's much appreciated. I will go through the refs and provide a list of those I believe to be reliable. As to Robert's suggestion that I delete refs: The problem here is that I am respectfully questioning the veracity of this regular's claims, as per my above bullet points. I hope I am formatting this correctly, but here is an example of what I am pointing to as per Wikirules Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works. If you scroll down to Using self-published sources section, you should be able to see what I am referring to (some of which I had copied and pasted above). Also, if you don't mind, can you please guide me to the section on Wiki that relates to video interviews? Thus far, I am unable to find anything which states that a video interview is unreliable. Thank you again for your time and assistance. 2601:86:0:2786:8D5B:2694:6103:6349 (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

An interview of the subject, in any format, may be reliable, but cannot be independent. And a list of reliable references won't help. What we are looking for – I think I've said this already – is reliable independent published sources with significant discussion about the subject. Maproom (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Tagging other users

Hi everyone,

I was just wondering how I can tag other wiki users?

Thanks,

KerryFromThePub (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @KerryFromThePub: You can tag other users by using the {{Reply to}} template. For example, I've tagged you by using {{reply to|KerryFromThePub}}. This should send you a notification that I've tagged you in a comment. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Can someone review my draft?

Can someone review my draft for a page submission? it was taken down before due to lack of notability being displayed. (Electroswing770 (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Electroswing770, If you are referring to Freshly Squeezed Music. It was delted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freshly Squeezed Music. Any new version would need to deal with the issues raised there, and particularly would need to establish notability by providing substantial discussion/coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I don't see any drafts, on this or any other topic, that you have created using this account. Can you please provide a name or a link if the draft is on-wiki? DES ^(talk) 19:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I presume that Electroswing is referring to the material currently posted at User:Electroswing770/sandbox. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Electroswing770, if Cordless Larry is correct, and you are talking about User:Electroswing770/sandbox, I would say it is not yet ready to be accepted. It does very little to establish the notability of Freshly Squeezed Music. There are number of mentions of the label, but not extended discussion of it, mostly in connection with the White Mink: Black Cotton compilation, and just saying that it was on the FSM label. To make this into an article, there would need to be several sources, each of which had 2-3 paragraphs or more about the label, not just a brief mention. Also, blogs are rarely useful sources. It would be better to quote an off-line source than a blog which reproduces it, usually, although in this case the blog in question might be allowed under the "recognized expert' exception. One further point: it is not usual to have both "references" and "sources" in separate lists, unless the page uses "Harvard" references or some other sort of shortened footnotes, which this draft does not currently do. DES ^(talk) 16:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Feedback request for my first page

Hi Everyone,

This is my first attempt at creating a Wiki page. Before I get to far into the process I was wondering if I can get feedback on my draft work in progress. Subject matter, photographic copy rights, layout, citations etc. are all concerning for me. Of course all comments are welcome. The draft is located in my sandbox User:Craig.cgc/sandbox

Thanks Craig Craig.cgc (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I see you have quite a lot of images and very little text so far at User:Craig.cgc/sandbox. Usually adding images should be one of the last steps in creating a draft article.

• The lead section, the text before the first section heading, should introduce the subject and summarize the entire article. In this case it might start something like "The State Reform School in Westborough Massachusetts was a correctional institution active from <year1> to <Year2>.
• Context should be clear at th4e start: where and when was this reform school established? How long did it exist? What are its chief claims to fame?
• The body of the article should go into more detail about the subject, divided into suitable sections. The framework you have looks plausible.
• You will need to find and cite reliable sources to support the statements in the draft, and to establish that the topic is notable. Read Referencing for Beginners for information on how to cite sources.
• Any images should also have their sources cited -- who created the image and when.
• The article draft should not editorialize: it should state facts derived from reliable sources. It may indicate opinions, provided that it is made clear whose opinions they are (not Wikipedia's) and that a source is cited to show that that person held that opinion. The aricle may not draw conclusions beyond what can be found in the sources.
• Please read Your First Article.

I hope the above helps. Feel free to ask more detailed questions. DES ^(talk) 17:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

What are the "rules" about creating a new stub article??

Quick question ... I was trying to be helpful and create a stub article for a publishing company that was missing. While I was still trying to create the article, another user deleted the article from under me for violating "the rules". How long does a user have to create a perfect article?? It seems like the article has to be 100% perfect at birth, or it'll be deleted within five minutes for violating "the rules". What, exactly are the rules for a stub article?? Hi-storian (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Any article must be sourced and demonstrate notability from square one. You can, of course, develop it and use "Show preview" to check it as you go, and not use "Save page" until it is ready. If you need to spend moretime developing it, you would be better off using a draft through the article for creation process (or a userspace draft), and in either of those cases you don't need to "Submit" it for review until you are happy that it meets Wikipedia's requirements. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: I've weighed in on the particular circumstances on your talk page, and I agree with David Biddulph here. I've been editing for sometime, and I still use sandboxes, and I just used Template:Under construction the other day. A new article doesn't need to be perfect from the outset but there are some minimum expectations based on speedy deletion criteria. I think some (but not all) editors prefer to see:

• A lead statement so it's understood what the topic is about,
• A claim of notability with some prose, and
• A few sources consistent with these principles.
• No evidence of copyright-infringing text nor promotional-sounding text.

I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Some of this helps, but it seems rather intimidating. What would make a publisher notable?? I understand that a very small local operation with less than a dozen titles would not be, but a major publisher that has hundreds of titles, marketed internationally should be, right?? Where do you draw the line??

Thanks also for the link to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. It's very long and gets very technical, but in the third paragraph of the introduction it says "Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation." How soon is too soon?? Five minutes?? An hour? A day? I take it's a bit of a judgement call, but some clarification of what is intended is helpful. It seems like the overall policy is about clear gibberish, vandalism, self-promotion (making a Wikipedia article about yourself) or technical issues like broken file formats and such. I'm not sure why my article got deleted while I was still writing it. I do understand the "Show preview" versus "Save Page", and do use it. However, I still do a lot of work by cutting and pasting from existing examples, and sometimes have too many tabs open, and it gets confusing, so sometimes it's easier to save an incomplete edit, close off the unneeded tabs, and start fresh. Still learning the ropes, here. Thanks! Hi-storian (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the two previous answers. It is not necessary for an article to be "perfect" at birth, but it is necessary for it to avoid speedy deletion. Evidently the OP's draft was speedy-deleted. An article may be speedy-deleted within five minutes or six hours if it doesn't satisfy the minimum criteria. For those reasons, and because it takes time to complete a minimum article, it is best to develop it somewhere other than in article space, either in user space or in draft space. Depending on how confident one is in one's ability to get the article to be minimally acceptable, one may either use Articles for Creation or one may move the article into article space when one is reasonably confident that it will avoid speedy deletion. A few editors argue that it is not reasonable to tag an article for speedy deletion within some number of hours after it is created, because it may still be in development, but I disagree; the article should not be in article space until it can avoid speedy deletion. The disadvantage to AFC is that may take up to two weeks before the article is reviewed. The disadvantage to an inexperienced editor moving the article from user space directly to article space is that another editor may disagree with their judgment as to whether it is minimally complete. In any case, the original poster's error appears to have been that they were creating the stub article in article space. Either develop it in user space and move it to article space when it is more or less finished, or use Articles for Creation, depending on your own level of experience and how confident you are in your judgment of whether it meets the standards stated above. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

As to the OP's latest question, about the comment that "administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation", my advice to an article creator is to make no assumptions. Do not assume that you have five minutes, let alone an hour or a day, to complete the article before moving it into article space. The article got deleted because you were still writing it in article space, and that is taking a risk, because not all nominators and not all administrators even follow that advice. Don't plan on "minimally completing" the article in article space. Plan on "minimally completing" it in draft space or user space. If it doesn't have a clear lede sentence, a claim of notability with some prose, and a few sources justifying that claim, it isn't "minimally complete". It doesn't have to be perfect before being in article space, but it does have to be minimally complete, and don't assume that the deleting administrator will wait five minutes, let alone an hour or a day. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

High-storian, I agree with the above comments. I have written almost 100 new articles, none of which has ever been deleted. I write all of my articles in my user sandboxes, and never move them to the main encyclopedia space until they are fleshed out and properly referenced. Also, I do not write stubs and recommend that you do not write them either. A stub is defined as "an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." Maybe stubs were acceptable in the early days of this encyclopedia, but in 2016, we should be writing encyclopedia articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I briefly took a look at the above posts and my eyes glazed over. OP?? AFC?? You win, I give up. I cease and desist from attempting to contribute new articles to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy clearly means nothing. Hi-storian (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: Not sure if this helps, but in the context that Robert McClenon used them in, "OP" means "original poster" (in this case, that would be you) and "AFC" stands for "Articles for Creation". Also, I think the easiest way to go would be to just create a userspace draft (as other editors have already suggested here) and to ask for advice after you've started it. CabbagePotato (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If you need a glossary to help you with the acronyms used in Wikipedia, you'll find it at Wikipedia:Glossary. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

High-storian. It is unfortunate that so many people come here and plunge straight into the most difficult and potentially frustrating activities: creating a new article. I always advise people to spend some time improving existing articles first, in order to become more familiar with how Wikipedia works. It is also unfortunate that anybody ever even suggests that a new person (or anybody, actually) might create an article directly, as opposed to creating a draft that they can work on with comparative freedom, using the articles for creation process or the Article wizard. Please don't be discouraged! --ColinFine (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is unfortunate that many newcomers either just decide to come to Wikipedia to create an article, an activity requiring considerable knowledge. I don't think that this idea among very new ideas is directly related to the idea among some experienced article creators that article creators are an elite, and that other roles in Wikipedia are less important. I will also comment that the remark about speedy deletion, suggesting that administrators should wait a while before deleting an obviously incomplete article, is actually harmful, because it gives the impression that creating an article in article space is a reasonable idea. It is not. In my opinion, creating an article in article space is not a good idea even for experienced editors. Maybe that statement about waiting before speedy-deletion should be removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with much of the above, Robert McClenon. There has been strong opposition at WT:CSD to removing the guidance against overly-prompt speedy deletion for most reasons (not copyvios or attack pages), and some support for making this guidance actionable, by sanctioning taggers who violate it. "A while" is usually defined as somewhere between 5 minutes and an hour, not days and days. I first created an article from scratch in article space on about my 25th edit, about 3 weeks after my first edit ever. Most of the text from that 2005 edit is still in place, too. At recent edit-a-thons I have assisted total newcommers to create articles. We did start in draft space, but moved to mainspace while the edit-a-thon was still in progress. In one case, the article was submitted for Did you know a few days later, which it passed easily. (I am referring to Takeshi Murata, but other articles created at the same session can be found at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Women in Arts and Tech#Outcomes. While I do generally advise inexperienced editors to create new articles in draft mode, most often using AFC, I don't advise them not to try creation, although i do try to indicate some of the hurdles that must be overcome for successful article creation. DES ^(talk) 22:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

How to fix notability?

Hello Wikipedia

I revised my article after receiving your advice ad sent it in for submission. I have gotten an answer and it was rejected on terms of notability. Most of my sources are directly from the developers leading to notability issues. There are a lot of people who have talked about Subterfuge on their blogs but I didn't use them for sources because I wanted to keep my article based on direct sources. How can I improve this to include more sources that are not directly from the developers in the hopes of getting it published? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Subterfuge_(game)&redirect=no Chariot Rider (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Chariot Rider, and welcome to the Teahouse. If by "direct sources", you mean ones that are not independent of the article subject, then that is a problem in terms of demonstrating notability, because that requires evidence of significant coverage of the subject in independent sources. Finding and adding those is what you need to do. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Chariot Rider. You might find it helpful to read the essay Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. --ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs. Wikibooks - Referencing

Hello - I asked this question in wikibooks' Reading Room too, but figured I should post more than one place. I'm trying to add a reference into a post on Wikibooks but it keeps telling me I'm trying to enter an email. I'm not - I'm attempting to add an outside link as a reference. I'm citing everything the same as I would when I was using Wikipedia. Is there a specific webpage-citation method I'm missing for Wikibooks?

Thanks. Hfk667 (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Hfk667. Do you have the problem on Wikipedia too? Also, try posting the link here inside a <nowiki></nowiki> element so that we can see what you are trying. —teb728 t c 01:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

My new article was declined for "promotional" language, but I didn't mean to do that. Advice?

Not the place for the text of a draft

Jennifer Rade, also known as the “Wicked Witch of the Wardrobe,” is a renowned fashion designer that lives in Los Angeles, California. Rade is known for her diverse portfolio of not only fashion design work, but also appearances on television and movies. She works with numerous A-List celebrities (incomplete list included.) Not only have her outfits been seen on the red carpet, they have also been in music videos and commercials. In February of 2013, her clothing line “EDGE” debuted. Rade’s work gained more attention in 2015 when styled Caitlyn Jenner for her Arthur Ashe Courage Award acceptance at the ESBY Awards. Jen Rade has been a spokesperson for companies such as Jergen’s Natural Glow, Proctor and Gambles, Schick, Nintendo, Ilori, Bloomingdales, Gap, Tiffany, Caress, and Macy’s. Rade is currently a spokesperson for TJ Maxx and Marshall’s. Introduction to the fashion business: After Jen Rade graduated from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, she moved to Los Angeles, where her work was soon recognized by Lionel Martin. Jen Rade began to complete work in hip hop and rap music videos with the help of Martin. Rade’s services were then hired by famous rappers such as Dr. Dre, Snoop Dog, Tupac Shakur, and Ice Cube. After Rade’s hip hop design career took off, notable rock and pop artists such as Lenny Kravitz, Will Smith, Dave Matthews, and Slipknot. Marilyn Manson even picked up on Rade’s styling work and hired her for six of his music videos. Style: Jennifer Rade’s style is unique to Los Angeles, in the sense that she considers “less is more.” Rade does not often overdress her clients and this was made evident in her QVC Edge clothing line. Rade dresses “casually and classic.” This style choice is also seen often on Angelina Jolie, whom Rade works with often. According to an interview with PopSugar Magazine, her favorite three outfits of Angelina Jolie for a red carpet appearance so far are from the 2004 Oscars, the Mr. and Mrs. Smith premier, and the Oceans 13 premier. Notable Accomplishments: EDGE Clothing Line: On February 22, 2013, Jennifer released her EDGE Clothing line through QVC. This clothing line set the trends for Summer of 2013 and was both admired and used by celebrities and fashion enthusiasts alike. In an interview with Stylecaster, Jeniffer described EDGE as her own “personal style” with “a bit of edge to it.” Jennifer intended for it to be a diverse clothing line “You don’t have to be 25 to wear it, you can be 55!” Her relaxed, stylish, and unique view on clothing has provided confidence for the average consumer as well as celebrities. Caitlyn Jenner ESBYs Appearance: In July of 2015, Caitlyn Jenner attended the ESBY Awards to accept the Arthur Ashe Courage Award. Caitlyn had long admired the style of Angelina Jolie, who consequently was styled by Jennifer Rade. Since this was Caitlyn’s first live appearance on the stage, there was a large amount of pressure on Rade to both capture Angelina Jolie’s image and transfer it to Caitlyn. Rade chose an off white colored ivory dress for Caitlyn that was admired greatly and critically acclaimed. Commercial Costume Design Awards: Rade’s work has been officially recognized for her excellent design work in commercials. The first time was in 2005 when Rade won a Commercial Costume Design Award for her work in Apple’s iPod “Dance” commercial. The second time Rade’s work was recognized was in 2006 when she was given a Costume Designers Guild Award. This time it was for her successful design for Target’s “Branding Circles” commercials. Acting Appearances: Jennifer has appeared in a variety of television shows, commercials, and even movies. On television, Rade has appeared on Project Runway’s Under the Gunn, Styl’d, Style Star, SoapTalk, The One: Making a Music Star, Shop Like a Star, Confessions of a Teen Idol, The Face, Paris in LA, The Munsters Today, and most recently, I am Cait. One of her most notable appearances on a television show was when she was a judge on Project Runway’s Under the Gunn. Not only has Rade had multiple television show appearances, she has been involved as an actress in commercials for Xfinity, H&R Block, T-Mobile, Honda, Netflix, and Netzero. In movies, she appeared in Shrink and Majority Rules. Commercial Costume Designs: Jennifer has styled actor costumes for numerous commercials as well. Her most notable commercial work was for the Apple iPod commercial, Dance, which she was awarded a Commercial Costume Design Award. Her other work for commercials includes Coors Light, Hershey’s, Target, Apple iPod, BlackBerry, US Bank, Microsoft, Golf Pride, Playstation, Smirnoff, and Michelob Ultra. Movie Styling: Jennifer has worked as a fashion designer for actors on movie sets as well. Some of her notable works include Michael Jackson’s This Is It (2009), Motorama (1991), Maxim Xul (1991), Undiscovered (2005), Playing Dangerous (1993) Music Video Costume Design: Jennifer has been a costume designer for multiple music artists, including Pink, Will Smith, The Dave Matthews Band, and Marilyn Manson. Marilyn Manson is one of Rade’s favorite artists to work. She has been quoted saying he is her “dear friend.” Rade says that Manson is “funny, smart, and well read.” List of Celebrities Styled: Jennifer Rade is a favorite stylist for many celebrities for their red carpet appearances. She has styled over fifty A-List celebrities for their time on the red carpet. While she has styled for many celebrities, she has consistently styled for the actress Angelina Jolie. Below is an incomplete list of celebrities styled.

(Drewholt (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. This isn't the place for the full text of a draft, so I've collapsed the display. All we need is a wikilink to Draft:Jennifer Rade. The feedback at the top of the draft is what you need to read, and included in that are links to useful pages. You need to read about independent published reliable sources, and how to use them in references as footnotes. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Statements such as 'Jennifer Rade’s style is unique to Los Angeles, in the sense that she considers “less is more.” ' look promotional and should not be made in the voice of Wikipedia. If someone else said that, quote them with a footnote. Also, use proper wikiheadings for the sections. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Every single assertion about how successful she is must be cited to an independent, reliable source, Drewholt. Every single quotation in the draft must also be cited to a reliable source. All unsourced promotional language must be removed, without exception. This is mandatory. Please read and understand the neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Comics

I need to know how much comics worth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.16.66.150 (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. We can't offer advice on the valuation of comics. You might want to try Wikipedia:Reference desk instead. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

name change

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synovate_Business_Consulting We are now Ipsos Business Consulting, could you please let me know the next steps for the page title and URL change?Ipsosbc (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there Ipsosbc, I've moved the article for you. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Getting bored

How to pass time in ICT practicals class? Gayontika (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Not by asking questions at an inappropriate place, I'm afraid, Gayontika. This is for questions about how to edit Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)