Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 477

Archive 470

←

Archive 475

Archive 476

Archive 477

Archive 478

Archive 479

Archive 480

Search Engines Wiki Article Indexing Timeframe

I published the "State Reform School for Boys" article about a month ago and it still has not appeared on any search engines. Does something need to be done to the article for this to occur? I didn't think the magic word needed to be included in article space. Thanks Craig 14:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig.cgc (talk • contribs)

Hi Craig.cgc. Nothing has to be done. State Reform School for Boys is the third Google result for me on a search for "State Reform School for Boys" in quotation marks. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Mucho Gracias PrimeHunter

Craig 17:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig.cgc (talk • contribs)

Hate to bust in with an non answer comment, but @Craig.cgc: don't forget to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ or click the pencil within the editor... Thanks --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops....still learning Thanks Craig 19:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig.cgc (talk • contribs)

Something is still going wrong with your signature, Craig.cgc. Did you type out "Craig 19:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)" manually, or use the four tildes (~~~~) to do that? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

used the four tildes > show preview > save page......Craig 19:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig.cgc (talk • contribs)

@Craig.cgc: Uncheck "Treat the above as wiki markup" at Special:Preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the bother.....Craig (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

No bother, Craig.cgc. It seems to be working properly now. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your help. Craig (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I duplicated PrimeHunter's search from my California smart phone, Craig.cgc, and got exactly the same result: #3 in natural Google search. A couple of paid ads displayed as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

how to translate an article in another language?

Dear Wiki Team I have recently created an article in English and I would like to trasnlate it into Danish. Do I need to write up the article from scratch? Thanks M0KLB (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi M0KLB. Yes, each Wikipedia is separate and articles have to be translated into and placed at any other Wikipedia language site. Please note that unless you are the sole author of the page (or unless all edits by others are truly ministerial changes/additions – which would not be the case with CS Pacific, assuming that's what this is about) you must provide copyright attribution upon performing the translation. See Wikipedia:Translate us#Here's how you can help for details on that and other advice. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

How much is 50 KB worth of prose

The Wikipedia help page on Writing Better Articles states "Articles should ideally contain less than 50KB worth of prose." How can I find how many KBs I've written while still in my sandbox? Drvalsummers (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drvalsummers and welcome to the Teahouse. 50KB of prose is 50,000 characters, including line breaks and spaces. To count how many KBs a page is, I tend to use this tool- you just copy and paste the text into there, and it counts it for you. Your sandbox is currently 19326 characters/ 19.3 KBs, and so is fine under this criterion. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Drvalsummers, if you look at the menu on the left-hand side of any page on Wikipedia, you should see a link to Page Information. Clicking on it will provide you with lots of information about the page including it's total size as well as how often it has been viewed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to see deleted pages?

I was looking for an article and it appears to have been removed. I am very new here. Mo Zarella 4-20 (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mo Zarella 4-20, welcome to the Teahouse. Only administrators, checkusers, and oversighters can see/restore the content of deleted pages. A deleted page might never be restored unless there is a good reason to do so. However, you can still check deletionpedia for an archived version of the article in question. -- ChamithN (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Mo Zarella 4-20. You can search for deleted pages in the deletion log, but only by exact name (including capitalization). If you tell us the name we might be able to do more: administrators can search by partial titles. It is not possible for non-administrators to see the content of deleted pages here, only the deletion log entry. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

User:ChamithN: Deletionpedia is an abomination, hosting thousands of copyvios, defamatory attack pages, etc. There's a reason we do not allow access to deleted content and we should not direct users to it. Regardless, it has not had any new entries in years, so whatever the page is here, it would not be found there.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Good to know. I was simply suggesting what Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages#Alternatives says. -- ChamithN (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I still need to do some research to find the exact name. Mo Zarella 4-20 (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

We know the search features better and may be able to help if you can say something about the article and why you think it existed earlier. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

If you can provide us with the exact name, you can make a request at Requests for Undeletion to have it moved to your user space or draft space. Such a request will be granted in the vast majority of cases, such as if it was deleted due to lack of notability or even to no credible claim of significance. Such a request will only be denied if the deleted page is one that was not acceptable even in draft space, such as if it contained copyright violation or serious BLP violations. In most cases, if you know the name of the article that was deleted, you can get it back in user space or draft space. The purpose of such a request is of course so that you can improve it to get it accepted into article space. Please use the Articles for Creation process to have your draft reviewed by experienced editors. I hope that provides more information. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

How do I change the name of an entry?

Benton County School of the Arts High School changed to Arkansas Arts Academy High School in 2014. However, the Wikipedia page is atill listed under Benton County School of the Arts High School. I am changing the name in the body of the article (and noting the old name, and when it changed) but I can't figure out how to change the name of the page itself.

Here's the current page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benton_County_School_of_the_Arts_High_School I want to change it to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Arts_Academy_High_School

Thank you!

Donaldvista (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Donaldvista and welcome to the Teahouse. I have moved the page for you, as you don't currently have permissions to move pages. You get the permission to move pages when you become autoconfirmed, which happens automatically after 4 days if you've made 10 edits (which it looks like you have). Joseph2302 (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

Donald Vista (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

t

Please helpme because i want to create new account with name yes ji because this account was recently blocked, and now my request was approved and now unblocked, but my name was not changed even request was approved, i want to create new account with name yes ji or with any other similar name,please help me. Tell me. Yes-bot (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Yes-bot. As noted in the thread below, you edited the wrong page. The correct page is: Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. But I'll make it as simple as possible by excerpting only those parts of the instructions as are likely to be applicable here:

1. Click here.
   • Add your desired username after NEW=
   • Add a reason for the change after REASON=
   • Do not add anything in the "subject/headline" box
2. Save the page.
3. Log out
4. Check back at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple periodically (without logging in) to answer any questions that may arise regarding your request. Please be patient. It may take a few days for your request to be completed. If you do not answer any questions, your request may be declined due to no response.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes-bot (talk) 06:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Ahah...... Thank you ..... Yes ji (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Creating a page

Luther Edward Vann, a noted artist in Savannah Georgia recently passed. As member's of his family, we would like to add a Wikipedia page. His name can be Google and his art work is known worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:40B9:D892:0:45:D3BC:6501 (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

"Passed"? You mean died? Please use clear unambiguous language. If you want to add a page there is nothing to stop you, so long as he is genuinely notable. However, I suspect that being "a noted artist in Savannah" may not be enough. Also, please note that Wikipedia is not a memorial site (see WP:MEMORIAL for detail) and that your closeness t the subject may give rise to concerns of conflict of interest. Emeraude (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I might just add that, having conducted a Google search, I have found no independent reliable sources to support the claim that he was an internationally renowned artist other than assertions in obituary sites, facebook etc. Emeraude (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Me

Hello Wiki Team, I have just joined the Wikipedia community and need only one question answered: How do you make a page an anti-vandalism page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:4000:35C0:491D:7B2C:6791:F60D (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse (I've moved your question to the top so that others can see it easily). What you probably mean is page protection. You can read all about it here: Wikipedia:Page protection. As the page says, pages are not protected against vandalism preventatively, but only when problems with vandalism has occurred. Page protection is a drastic measure, and we have other means to counter vandalism on articles, and those measures don't preclude other editors from making constructive edits. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

what?

Hello, i,m now unblock because my request is approved,i have a question and need answer in tips: My account was blocked because of my name ending in the word Bot, and i made request for changing name from yes-bot to yes ji and my request is approved and i,m unblock now but why my name is not changed,and what is the next step i do , please answer me in tips. Yes-bot (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Yes-bot, your request hasn't actually been accepted yet; you were only unblocked so you could put in a request. Also, you tried to place a request in the wrong spot, as Ansh666 mentioned on your talk page. To put in a username change request, go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple and follow the directions there. CabbagePotato (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi CabbagePotato it,s much difficult for me because i,m new , i think it,s more better to create new account with this username yes ji. Yes-bot (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The username change request to Yes ji has now been accepted and carried out. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

How do I merge two same pages

The biographical entries for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Ortom and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Ioraer_Ortom are for one and thesame person. How do I merge or delete one. Thinkcrafts (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Have a look through WP:MERGE. As the articles seem to be of the same person, the merge doesn't appear controversial, so feel free to be bold and go through with the merge yourself. MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Advice on how to add entries to categories

Recently on the talk page of Category: Swiss Protestants, I have suggested that Carl Gustav Jung should be added, and on the talk page of Category: English republicans I have suggested that Jeremy Corbyn should be added. Just in case you had not guessed, my question is - how does one add to categories in Wikipedia?Many thanks for any help here. It will be appreciated.Vorbee (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey Vorbee. If you click edit at the top of the article on Carl Jung, and then in the edit window where all the text of the article is, scroll to the bottom of the page, you will see how the page was added to numerous other categories. Follow that lead (note that they are usually added in alphabetical order there), i.e., by added [[Category:Swiss Protestants]] after [[Category:Swiss philosophers]] and then saving the page Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

In future, Vorbee, I would suggest posting such suggestions on the article's talk page rather than the category's. I think you're more likely to get input there. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

If adding a category is likely to be controversial, then discussing it before adding it is a good idea. But most categorization is non-controversial. Just be bold, and add relevant categories. Discuss the matter if you are reverted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

In the case of Jung, there is already a discussion on the talk page from 2014 arguing that any such category should be removed. Only two people posted in it, both arguing that any Christian category should be removed; but the article is currently in Category:Swiss Protestants (I have not checked whether that is a recent addition, or whether it was never removed). For what it is worth, I would argue strongly against any such category for that article, not just on philosophical grounds, but on the basis that adding the article to such a category is making an uncited claim about the subject - in the case of Jung, it is a controversial claim as well. In my view, unless a reliable source is cited in the article which specifically claims that he was a Protestant, then the category should be removed from the article. In fact, I am going to remove it now. --ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Signed In, Now What?

Okay, So I created a Wikia account. But To start a Wikia It says I have to comfirm my email. I cliked on Click here and we'll send a new one. And it send me to a page and it said, Oh, no! Your email is unconfirmed. We've sent you an email, click the confirmation link there to confirm. It tells me the confirmation link. So where is the confirmation link?CheeseCraftBoy21921 (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop creating new accounts, CheeseCraftBoy21921. We cannot help you with another site, as explained below. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I try to keep one account But when I wake up the next day my account isn't there! Codeless Larry So how can I keep this account permanent so every day It'll still be usable?CheeseCraftBoy21921 (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Your previous accounts still exists, CheeseCraftBoy21921, albeit some are blocked for sockpuppetry. There's no reason you can't use Dr.PepperOreos2190. In any case, you are clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, so I suggest that you stop wasting your time. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The Teahouse has nothing whatsoever to do with participating on Wikia, CheeseCraftBoy21921. You have created far too many accounts to ask repetitive and disruptive questions here. You have tried repeatedly to create fictional content even though every experienced editor has has told you to stop. This is your final warning: if you disrupt Wikipedia again, in any way, shape or form, I will support a site ban that will allow any new account you create to be blocked on sight. As long as you are determined to create fictional content, please move on to other websites, and leave Wikipedia behind. This is simply not negotiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, Cullen, CheeseCraftBoy21921 no longer seems to be trying to create fictional content here, and has taken various people's advice and moved on to Wikia. However, Cheese Boy, you don't yet seem to have got the message that nobody here can help you in any way at all with Wikia, and I agree with Cullen that if you ask further questions here about Wikia, that will be disruptive. --ColinFine (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you've missed his later sockpuppets, Colin; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

"Edit" is gone .. and i see now only "edit sourse" ..

Hello all, is this normal ? Perhaps there is a reason ? But in fact, i am just a beginner here :-) Thanks in advance. With metta and kindly, davidCreatordavid109 (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Creatordavid109, welcome to the Teahouse. You can change the "Editing mode" field at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Google logo template

Are administrators the only ones allowed to add the Google logo template to an article when Google creates a logo talking about the particular person or subject? 206.176.21.40 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I am also wondering this? Ilikeguys21 (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi 206.176.21.40 and Ilikeguys21 and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm a little confused by what you mean by "when Google creates a logo"- are you referring to the Google Knowledge Graph which appears when you search on Google?

If you are, then the Google Knowledge Graph is managed entirely by Google, and takes its information from many sources, one of which is Wikipedia. No-one on Wikipedia (including admins) has control over what Google Knowledge Graph displays, it's 100% decided by Google. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

No, what I mean is when you go to Google's main page and their logo has changed to commemorate a certain topic or person. If you then go to the Wikipedia article about that person or topic the template {{Google Doodle}} will have been added and a notification at the top of the article will let everyone know that the article is the topic of a google doodle. Everytime I try and add this template, nothing on the page changes. So only admins must be able to use it then? Ilikeguys21 (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I think they're talking about Google Doodles, though I'm still not entirely sure what the question is. MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you link to the particular article? Some articles are pending change protected, which means you can make edits to the page, but the changes won't actually show up until someone approves those edits. MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify. Yes, I am talking about google doodles. When I go to a page (let's say prince for example because a few days ago, the google log was prince realted0 and add the {{google doodle}} template at the top of the source editor, nothing on the actual page changes. Why is that?? I tried the same thing on my sandbox and nothing showed up either?Ilikeguys21 (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ilikeguys21: I examined {{Google Doodle}} and it's missing some documentation. The template only displays something on a page if the page name is coded for the date in {{Google Doodle/article/2016}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ilikeguys21. See Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Google Doodle task force. The template only shows on the day that the article is the subject of the doodle. Thanks for asking. I didn't know this existed. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I have added a note to the documentation of {{Google Doodle}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Userpages across wikimedia sister projects

Hi, I was wondering how to properly set up userpages on various sites and centralize them. Would mirroring or redirecting be the best option. In particular I would like to connect my userpage here(en.wikipedia), commons.wikimedia, en.wiktionary, & mediawiki. I understand that it would be much more difficult for sites of different languages, but there are still many english wikis.

Thanks! Houdinipeter (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Try Wikipedia:Global user page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

How to create a new entry in Wikipedia

How do you create a new entry for a new radio station. Does it have to be submitted, or can anyone just create a new entry? JD Foxx (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hi JD Foxx I suggest looking at Wikipedia:Your first article and then using the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. Note that new articles must meat Wikipedias Notability standards, and in general "Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic" (see WP:42). All the best KylieTastic (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Social Media Links

Hi, I'm trying to find a policy that covers social media links, or excessive/promotional external links? Just noticed Gabi Grecko just had 6 added that quacks of promotion, but wasn't sure of the correct policy against such link spam. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi KylieTastic. Wikipedia:External links has guidelines for that. Gab4gab (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox help!!

Is there anyway I can modify the Spouse(s) listing in the inbox to say Spouse? I know it is a convention of Wikipedia but the subject of my article is adamant that he's only ever had ONE spouse!

Also, is there a way to make a custom entry for "grandchildren" or do I have to list them under "relatives"?

Thank you!

AuthorKJ (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AuthorKJ. Your question raises several issues. The parentheses included in the formulation "Spouse(s)" makes it clear that it includes people with one spouse as well as those who have had more than one spouse. There is no implication of multiple spouses. As for the subject of the article being "adamant", please be aware that the subjects of Wikipedia biographies do not own their biographies, nor control their content. Because Template: Infobox person is used in over 200,000 articles, any changes to it are by nature highly controversial.

Though I see this concern as misplaced, I see two possibilities in this case. One is to leave out the infobox, since infoboxes are optional, and mention the spouse in the body of the article. Another is to include the infobox but leave the spouse field blank, so it will not display. The spouse can then be listed in the "Relatives" field, described parenthetically as the spouse. As for the grandchildren, in my opinion it is not appropriate to list them unless reliable published sources describe the relationship. If the subject's relationship with his grandchildren is a defining characteristic described in reliable published sources, then they too can be listed in the "Relatives" field. Information based only on one's own personal knowledge is not appropriate for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi AuthorKJ. I've made a request for the change in Spouse(s) at Template talk:Infobox person. Template:Infobox royalty labels it "Spouse", even in the case of Henry VIII of England and his six wives. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen and StarryGrandma. The spouse is mentioned elsewhere in the article. However, an infobox seemed appropriate in this case.

This is a learning process, for my subject and myself. I will be sharing what I have learned in an upcoming meeting and as always will do my utmost to comply with Wikipedia standards.

21:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AuthorKJ (talk • contribs)

"Conflict of Interest" editing

4/25/16 Re: Inspire (company) Hi, I work for a privately held company, Inspire, and my submission this past Friday was rejected. The editor who replied hinted that I was somehow was hiding the fact that I was submitting the entry on behalf of the company. I never tried to shield that fact--in fact, just the opposite. If there is a disclosure form of some sort, I'll sign it, and do whatever else may be required. I modeled our entry closely on a number of similar private companies. This morning I edited out what may be considered peacock terms. The current draft submission includes links to sources such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Stanford University. I don't want to resubmit it until I ensure that I disclose my relationship to Inspire clearly and appropriately, and that the revised submission meets the criteria. Thank you. JTNwriter (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no disclosure form. The recommended place to disclose your Conflict of interest is on your user page: just write a statement there describing your relationship with the company – and anything else about yourself that may be relevant to your activities on Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

JTNwriter, if there is substantial coverage of this company by reliable sources like New York Times, Washington Post and Stanford University, it should be used to reference statements in the article and not just listed as external links. You can't use sources liked blogs, LinkedIn or Slideshare for the article as that is user-generated content (see WP:RS for more information about what is required for adequate sourcing). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi JTNwriter. You can use use {{paid}}. Place it on your user page with the fields filled in: {{paid|user=JTNwriter|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}} Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Where do I report problems with citations?

On Microchip's page, the paragraph titled Television makes note of a recent episode of the Netflix series DareDevil. However, all three citations refer to Spider-Man episodes from the 1990's. The sentence is factually correct but the citations are wrong. I don't know how much this matters to you all but since Wikipedia is so user-based, I thought I'd bring it to someone's attention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchip_(comics)#cite_note-32

2602:306:C5A7:4A20:D11B:7B50:3937:B293 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for telling us about this, it has been fixed (I believe the citations were intended for a different sentence above, so I have moved them to where the belong). There is no real place to "report" issues, as Wikipedia is edited by many editors; even you could have fixed it if you wanted to. Typically you can put a message on the article's talk page (in this case, Talk:Microchip (comics)) and usually other editors will notice it. Thank you for your contribution! -Liance^{talk/contribs} 00:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Fusing multiple biographies of pseudonymous deceased person?

Dear all, I'm looking for someone who's versed in editing biographies of *deceased* persons. I just edited the disambiguation page for Mountain Charlie, a person only known by pseudonym.

As you can see, the first two entries seem to be on the same person (note that I edited them based on the information on their respective pages). However, the first entry is currently just a redirect to the disambiguation page itself (it was a redlink before). I don't want to brashly delete that entry, in particular because the page of the second entry only mentions that information in a side note. The matter is complicated by a previous dispute on whether that person was a trans-man or not (c.f. preceding edit).

In a nutshell, there would be so many issues in fusing those two entries that I would like someone with enough standing as an editor and enough experience regarding the policies do it, or at least tell me which maintenance tag fits for deceased / pseudonymous persons and have the corresponding wikiproject look over it.

Does anyone happen to know the appropriate maintenance template, or is anyone able to do the fusion? You might want to leave a note on my talk page if you answer here. Thanks in advance! Se'taan (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Se'taan. The best outcome is to merge the two redundant pages. The fact that this person is deceased, or that this person is best known by a pseudonymn, is irrelevant to the main issue, which is that we now have two articles about the same topic. Since you are interested in the topic, then you have both the standing and the experience to solve the problem. You can find instructions about how to do so at Wikipedia:Merging. I encourage you to be bold and do it. We need more editors with the confidence to address such problems, and in this specific case, you are the best editor to do so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing Please

Hello, The source of information should not be from the page/website of a person we are writing about right? Thank you, Poeijung (talk) 06:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Poeijung. A person's own website cannot establish notability, since that requires significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. If the person is notable as established by such sources, then non-controversial information can be referenced to a personal website. Such information may include date and place of birth, basic educational details, and so on. Evaluative statements, such as "world's greatest widget builder" or any other judgement, should never be cited to the subject's personal website. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Minimal reference available

Hi,

A recent submission of mine was reject for multiple reasons, one of which is that the submission was lacking references. The submission was made after extensive online research, which produced no results for the specific item being written about.

I would be appreciative of further advice on how to find 'a range of independent, reliable, published sources' for an item or term that that is not widely used?

The comments from the reviewer were as follows: "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject."

Thank you Millfact (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Millfact, using more formal, encyclopedic language can be addressed by revising the article. But it can take some time to find reliable sources. Looking at Amazon, there is The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism by Arun Sundararajan you might want to check out. And if you do a search for "crowdsourced" rather than "crowdsharing", you might find some sources you could use if they use the term "crowdsharing". If you can't find anything, then it is likely too soon for this article and Wikipedia will have to wait a while for this article to exist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Millfact. Your draft article says that this term was coined only four months ago, in December, 2015. It is hard to find any evidence that this term has received the necessary significant coverage in reliable sources in that short time. Please read WP:NEOLOGISM. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Millfact. You write that your "submission was made after extensive online research, which produced no results for the specific item being written about". Unfortunately, that is a pretty good description of something that fails to meet our notability criteria, which require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Those sources can include offline ones, so it might be possible that there is published material that your search did not reveal, but in this particular case that sounds unlikely. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject

I would like to create a wikiproject page. How do I go about getting one started? Is it the same as creating a regular page? I need some help. Maybe a how to wiki article? Thanks Ilikeguys21 (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ilikeguys21: I'm not very familiar with WikiProjects, but a guide of sorts does exist at WP:PROJGUIDE - MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Creating a WikiProject is just like creating a regular page, with the exception that you have to prefix the title with Wikipedia:

For example, WikiProject Germany exists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany. Tons of WikiProjects for almost every topic and task imaginable already exist. You should see if there is one for what you had in mind here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

User settings were suddenly reset today

Just wondering how large was the extent of the apparent software glitch, and if anyone experienced same, and should I file a bug report? I opened Wikipedia today, and discovered that my theme was reset to Vertor, which is the default one (I am used to use Monobook); my custom CSS for Monobook was wiped. Most (probably all) settings were reset: time zone to UTC (was PST), math formula to PNG (was MathML); I did not have much else customizations but these were definitely changed. Fortunately for me, another language Wikipedia sites that I read often had my monobook.css intact, so I copied it back. The reset happened only on the English site.

Mostly I am wondering is this something that should be reported to the devs. If that was my account alone, perhaps that's of little help, but if a few were affected, they would probably have a better chance of tracing the bug. Also, I never filed software bug reports on Wikipedia site/engine before, and a pointer would be appreciated as well! Goudron (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't have anything except default and I haven't noticed a change, but you may want to report at the WP:Village pump (technical). White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Goudron: I have seen no other reports like that and it sounds unlikely your monobook files should be wiped with no trace. There is no sign User:Goudron/monobook.js has existed or User:Goudron/monobook.css has been changed since 2014. Special:Preferences and those pages are stored in different ways and it would be very strange if they were simultaneously hit by errors not affecting others. Are you sure the missing settings weren't for another account or wiki? Special:Contributions/Goudron shows no edits in the last month before today. User:Goudron/monobook.css from 2014 and User:Goudron/css from today are nearly identical. The page User:Goudron/css is not used by the software but maybe you know this and only use it for backup. The bottom of Special:Preferences has the link "Restore all default settings (in all sections)". Maybe you accidentally did that? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:Thank you. Very strange. It did not occur to me to look at the history of User:Goudron/monobook.css after I restored it, but I swear it did disappear, so I copied it over and also created a backup in User:Goudron/css. Ok, I think this was kind of a synchronization glitch or something, so I'll put the issue to rest, unless you'd suggest otherwise. Probably not worth the effort as it stands. If it ever happens again, I'll go to Village Pump as suggested. Thanks for your detailed checking! Goudron (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Goudron: I still haven't seen other reports and suggest putting it to rest when it works now. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Me

Hello, i want to become an administrator or extended conform user or BOT etc, but how to become fast? Please do not bite me. Yes-bot (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is a fast track, other than making lots of good edits and learning Wikipedia policies. Dbfirs 21:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed is automatically granted after 30 days and 500 edits; there isn't a way to get the right before. Administrator requires passing an WP:RFA, which generally requires several years and tens of thousands of edits' worth of experience. Bot is reserved for automated accounts. ansh666 01:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

If Yes-bot is not actually a bot the username must be changed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Already changed, see two above: #t & #what?. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Creating a page for a former Ballroom Dancing World Champion

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to create a page for Heather Stuart who was the World, European and British Champion for Amateur Ballroom dancing in 1983. Heather tragically passed away last year and I was hoping to set up a page for her in tribute to her accomplishments. She is also credited with creating a 'dance fashion revolution' as is responsible for ballroom dancers wearing the long dresses you see rather than 'puff' dresses which used to be the style.

I have further information about her dancing career and photos to contribute to the page however, I am not sure where to begin.

Please let me know how to start creating this page

Kind regards

CZH&JWS (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, CZH&JWS, and welcome to the Teahouse. You should begin by reading Your first article. The most important thing is what we call notability; only noteworthy topics are included in the encyclopedia. In order to be notable, a topic has to be significantly covered in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. You said you have information about her. What sort of information is that? If it's something you just happen to have learnt through experience, it can not be used. If it's published in reliable sources, then it's of use.

If you think the topic is notable, please read the help page I've linked above and proceed to Articles for creation. And please, bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a memorial; all notable topics should be written about in a neutral, non-promotional, tone. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Additonal information about a particular episode of Perry Mason

Dear Ladies and/or Gentlemen:

I have discovered a few facts which I think may be of interest to your readers; and, they concern a particular episode of "Perry Mason." Specifically, Season #1, Episode #17. How do I go about submitting that information to you? Thank you for your time and consideration; and, I am looking forward to hearing from you at your convenience.Joseph Ferraro (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Joseph Ferraro, and welcome to the Teahouse. There isn't a mechanism for "submitting information" to Wikipedia: Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody can edit. However, bear in mind that all information in Wikipedia should be cited to reliable published sources. So, if you have a reliable published source for the information you want to add (and reliable means "from a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking"), you are welcome to edit the article (Perry Mason I presume) to add your information, preferably with a citation to the source. If that seems a bit daunting, then explain what you want to add, and where it is sourced, on the article's talk page Talk:Perry Mason, and somebody else will come along and make the change if they think it is appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Please Help me to create a page of Indian author Leema Dhar

Recent questions...

Dear Team, After performing several corrections on my article Draft: Leema Dhar, I have getting feed backs that it still has a pretty big neutrality/informalness issue. I have even submitted the highest authentic source of her notability by submitting Indian Government Sahitya Akademy WHO's WHO OF INDIAN WRITER:links with other relevant sources.I have gone through guidelines on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view but I am afraid I am still not capable to fix it completely. I request to kindly guide me to correct this issue. Thanks and Best Regards SamMartinx (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, SamMartinx. I'm afraid that Who's Who entry does nothing whatever to establish notability. It is just a directory entry, not a substantial piece of writing. You need to show that several people who have no connection to the writer have chosen to write at length about her, and reliable publishers have thought it worth publishing those pieces about her. --ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't this guy's infobox be businessmen instead of artist?

Doug Morris. fireattack (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fireattack: This guy does seem to have businessman instead of artist. The word artist only shows up twice in the entire article and neither are very prominent or referring to him. Houdinipeter (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fireattack and welcome to the Teahouse. I also agree that he seems most notable as a businessman, so the businessman infobox should probably be used. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing images that do not meet WP guidelines

Does Wikipedia have a procedure for removing images that apparently do not meet its guidelines for fair use? I ask that because tonight I found on Talk:Singin' Sam a warning about the image Singsam.jpg. The warning was posted more than eight years ago. 23:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize that I wasn't logged in when I posted the question above.Eddie Blick (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Teblick. Each usage of non-free content on Wikipedia is required to comply with WP:NFCC. If you feel that a file does not, then you can nominate it for discussion at WP:FFD or you can nominate it for speedy deletion by adding one of the templates in Category:File deletion templates. File:Singsam.jpg was tagged for speedy deletion because it lacked the non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c. However, another editor provided a rationale for file's the use in the article, so the file wasn't deleted. Just for reference, adding a rationale does prevent the file from being speedily deleted per WP:F6, but it does not automatically mean the rationale is a valid one and that the file's usage satisfies WP:NFCC. If you have concerns about the rationale, then you can (1) tag the file with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} or (2) ask for comments on the rationale at WP:FFD. If you have any specific questions about the file's copyright status, then you can ask them at WP:MCQ -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the information. I'm still learning about various aspects of the guidelines involved with images. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Help in properly linking other pages that relate to my topic!

Hi everyone! I just submitted my very first wiki article and today got a notice that it is an orphan article. There are definitely other articles that relate to my topic on Peace Village (Winnipeg, Manitoba) but I think maybe I have not properly linked them. How do I link them to my page? I'm new, help! :)

Willowwray (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Willowwray and welcome to the Teahouse. You can link pages by putting [[these brackets]] around them: for more information, see Wikipedia:Wikilink. When you have linked to the article from other pages, you can remove the orphan template. Thank you for your contributions, and feel free to ask if you have any more questions. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Rubbish computer I am still a bit confused. Where on my page should I insert the links?

Willowwray (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Rubbish Computer I am still a bit confused. Where on my page should I insert the links?

Willowwray (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Willowwray. You do not insert these links in the article you have written. Instead, you insert the links in other related articles that mention your topic. Once you have added those incoming links to your article in other related articles, then you can remove the orphan template. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Prime Lands Group

I reviewed Draft:Prime Lands Group and declined it as reading like an advertisement. It was already tagged for G11. Its author, User:Lithiumsirlanka, then wrote:

Hi Robert, I submitted an article with the title Prime Lands Group. Can you please give me some pointers to clean it up. Like remove some links or a specific paragraph that violates the G11, Thanks in advance.

In looking over the references, I see a mixture of unreliable sources and probably reliable sources. The unreliable sources include its own web site and LinkedIn.

There are two separate issues. First, should it be tagged for G11? Second, if not, what is needed to improve it? In looking over the history of the article, I see that it has always been tagged for G11, since it was created, and has always been tagged as reading like an advertisement (not the same as being declined for reading like an advertisement). I infer that the author originally created an article about the company in article space, where it was tagged for speedy deletion, and that the author then copied the page into their sandbox. Copying the page into the sandbox to rely on AFC was a good idea, but dragging the tags along was a self-inflicted injury.

I don’t like to answer the question of what one link or paragraph to remove from a declined article or a G11 article, because the author is likely to remove the one link or paragraph without looking at overall tone. Since the author does ask what specifically can be removed to get the draft accepted, I will ask the same question that User:Deb did, and that is whether the author has a conflict of interest.

I don’t know to what extent the current draft resembles or differs from the deleted article. Since I am not an administrator, I can’t see deleted articles. Maybe User:I dream of horses, who nominated it for speedy deletion, or User:Deb, who deleted it, can comment on whether the current draft is better than the deleted article.

So I will repeat the question. Does the author have a conflict of interest that should be declared?

Does any experienced editor want to comment on whether the current draft can be improved? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

A sentence like "The company slogan is "Committed To Create a Better Place on Earth"." in the lede is a good starting point for an advertisement. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Many of the references are either directly from the company or obviously based on press releases. Where are the independent sources? --David Biddulph (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with David Biddulph on this matter. I do not see significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about this company. If I am correct, then the company is not notable, as Wikipedia defines that term. In such a situation, no tweaks, adjustments or rewrites can correct the fundamental problem with the draft. A draft article about a non-notable topic which is written stylistically from the neutral point of view, and is formatted and presented just like an acceptable encyclopedia article, should still be declined. Style alone cannot turn a non-notable topic into a notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The draft is certainly better than the original deleted article, mainly because it's shorter. Apart from that, I agree with the comments above. Deb (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's a useful link: Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. If contributors read that before worrying about promotional language etc., it would save everyone's time. Maproom (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, except I don't think I'm alone in being more worried about the increasing quantity of promotional edits than I am about non-notable topics being included. Deb (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

If User:Deb refers to a trend in Wikipedia to more cruft being submitted, I think that it is a price that Wikipedia pays for success, in that non-notable people, companies, bands, etc., want to be listed, and ad a result submit non-notable promotional cruft/crud. There is nothing that we can do except to decline it, sometimes three or four times, since on they start off without a clue about what is permitted or even what Wikipedia is. But that's a comment about AFC and other new stuff, not mostly about Prime Lands. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I still haven't seen an answer about conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I was really talking more about the cynical use of wikipedia to promote businesses and people, which may well result from ignorance of the purpose of this project but also indicates a mindset currently prevalent in many societies, one that clashes rather violently with this project's basic principles. I was just answering what seemed to be an implication that lack of notability is the easiest way to get a promotional article deleted; I don't care too much about an individual posting his CV on wikipedia because he doesn't understand what an encyclopedia is for, but I care a lot more when an employer, large or small, pays someone to post an advert for the company. Personally I find the present guidance on conflicts of interest to be of little use in handling these situations.Deb (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I mostly agree with User:Deb. I think that there is an increase in both non-notable articles and promotional articles, two distinct but overlapping problems, both of which are aggravated by Wikipedia' success, which encourages self-promotional use. I don't fully understand Deb's comment about "a mindset currently prevalent in many societies", unless she includes capitalism in general. Because Wikipedia has a different set of values than profit-making enterprises, we (Wikipedia) have to be diligent in minimizing crud. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Advice dealing with a bothersome unregistered user.

Hello. I had a quick question about how to deal with a bothersome unregistered user, who usually comes in on the weekends. First, let me iterate that I myself am an unregistered user, but I only edit a few television programs and am not an ardent Wikipedia editor. I just try and concentrate on a few shows. Anyhow, this user, who some people may know, comes in during the weekend and makes constant edits. Unlike me, who concentrates on content, this user focuses mainly on structure, (infoboxes, sort listings, fixing up IMDB) things that I am not well versed on their Wikipedia notability. They will edit various TV programme and Music pages and edit certain structural things. (I am not saying that everything this guy edits is without merit however) The kicker is that this guy also does not like edit summaries. Instead of describing why he is editing the page, he writes gems uch as "marching elephant" or "We're being invaded by Hottentots" ??. If you try to revert him, he'll keep reverting those edits. If you give in, the next time, he may go in to the page and add in more unsourced additions. He seems very persistent. One reason why I am not sure of what is right and what is wrong is that since I first encountered this unregistered user a few months ago, I have noticed, various blocking attempts from registered users like Ponyo and MaterialScientist who cite sockpuppetry, constnt disruption, and editsummary problems. I know what's been said about the three revert rule and that if you block an unreistered user for good that they can come back on with a new IP address. My question is on how to deal with editors like this who come on just to cause trouble and won' t listen to reason. If I see that he is adding unsourced or false info on the page, I would revert it, but he would just revert it saying "Blue moon". This editor is getting to be a pain and would like some advice on how to deal with him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.166.162.242 66.13D1o2.185 (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I had been about to advise you that disruptive editing can be reported to WP:ANI, and that disruptive editing by unregistered editos is usually best dealt with by semi-protection, and that the use of deliberately annoying or irrelevant edit summaries is a form of disruptive editing. It appears that at least two respected administrators are dealing with this disruptive editor. If this particular editor disrupts particular articles, request semi-protection. Do you have a specific question? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, is there a reason why you choose not to register an account? Registered users with pseudonyms have far better privacy than non-registered users. There are several reasons to register an account, and no valid reasons to edit using IP addresses. Also, if you and a disruptive unregistered editor edit the same articles, autoconfirmed editors can continue to edit a semi-protected article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. I am in complete agreement with my colleague Robert McClenon that opening an account offers you many benefits, and not a single disadvantage that I have been able to discern in almost seven years of editing here. The choice is yours. If an article is semi-protected due to disruption by IP editors, then registered, autoconfirmed editors can continue to edit the article in compliance with our policies and guidelines, but IP editors cannot do so. The edit summaries that you quoted are disruptive and overtly unhelpful. So, my advice is register, and to accept this IP editor's useful edits. Revert their disruptive edits, and request page protection if they persist in disruptive editing. This allows you to improve the articles in question without disruption. You will establish a reputation for productive contributions to the encyclopedia, and will be in a much stronger position to counter disruptive IP editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Which source to cite?

Dear Teahouse members,

I have found some useful information for an article I am writing. It's from the preface of a musical score which states very simply and factually that the subject of my article began working in Berlin on 1 December 1763. This information is cited from a book which I don't have access to. Should I cite the preface or the book in my article?

Thanks

Twil1991 (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Twil1991. You should not cite a source such as a book that you have not read yourself, whether in the form of a paper copy or online. As for citing the preface to a musical score, the question is whether or not it is a published reliable source. In general, we expect that a source have professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy and correcting errors. If you are in doubt, you can ask for opinions at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Editors who specialize in classical music topics may also have useful advice. Gerda Arendt is an experienced editor I know to be very helpful in that area. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

That score is a published book which you can cite. You can also see if you find (Google may be helpful) the same information in an additional source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

submission to psychology portal

Hello, my article AEDP belongs in the psychology portal. Do I submit my draft to the psychology portal, or once it's approved does it automatically get listed in the psychology portal? Carrieruggieri (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Carrieruggieri. Please accept my apologies for the length of time it has taken to answer your question. As far as I know, portals don't have anything to do with reviewing drafts, so you should work on the draft until it passes review, and then deal with the portal issue. You could ask at Portal talk:Psychology about how you get a new article included. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Help with Wikiproject

Hello all, I am needing a lot of help with my new wikiproject that I have created. Please join the team or at least, spread this around. Will you all help me at Wikipedia:WikiProject Essential Oils? Thanks Ilikeguys21 (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ilikeguys21, and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have any specific issues we can help you with? If you are looking to recruit participants, this might not be the best place, as this page is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia and I don't know if any of the regular editors here have much knowledge of essential oils. If you want to recruit participants, I suggest that you look through the talk pages and histories of relevant articles, to identify regular contributors on this topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I was wanting extra help, so thanks for your advice. Ilikeguys21 (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)