Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 902

Archive 895

←

Archive 900

Archive 901

Archive 902

Archive 903

Archive 904

Archive 905

Question about use of primary material as a source

Hello. my username is TrudiJ and I am a fairly new editor, but I am a Wikipedia course instructor this semester, which is quite exciting. I'd like to double-check my understanding of appropriate sources, before challenging my students on this point. I am starting to draft an article about a ready-to-wear fashion designer who is not already in Wikipedia. A specialized library not far from me has an archival collection of materials related to her career, and as a scholar, I would have access to it. However, because these materials are mainly primary sources, is it true that using these materials would not be appropriate? Some original research might be needed, which I realize is not allowed, although basic facts could be derived from the materials--would this be acceptable? And would there be a problem with using this material even if it were collected or put together by the designer herself? Thank you for your assistance. TrudiJ (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)TrudiJ

Welcome to the Teahouse TrudiJ, only published material may be used as a source. Published material written by the subject can be used sparingly and only for uncontroversial facts. Wikipedia does not publish original research including conclusions deduced newly from sources. Such research and conclusions must come from published reliable secondary sources. —teb728 t c 05:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi TrudiJ. It generally OK to add a few statements from primary sources that aren't liable to be challenged, but all key factual statements must be based upon published sources that anyone can check for themselves (even if it requires ordering a book at great expense). As a retired museum curator, I personally find it extremely frustrating that valuable data or documents I hold (or held) within my museum's archives that I had sometimes spent years gathering together can't be used to base articles upon. But that is the reality of how we work here; this is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, so every editor must be held responsible for basing content upon accessible, published sources. My collections and department archives simply wouldn't have been deemed as accessible in that way, and my work would have been seen as OR, which is not only fine, but actively encouraged within academia, but definitely not here. The key message to take away is to encourage, cajole or bully library and museum staff to publish!, publish!, publish!, whether it's online or in leaflet/book/journal form. Once made publicly available there's a reasonable assumption that the institution has had editorial input into that material, so is quite likely to be deemed reliable. You mission, should you choose to accept it, is to get that information mobilised. Remember, too, that a picture is worth a thousand words, and it really sounds like you have an opportunity to work with them to take and upload relevant photographs to Wikimedia Commons which can be used to support article content. We have have a project called Wikipedia:GLAM, which I suspect you're already aware of, which aims to collaborate with libraries, archives and museums in mobilising that content. Good luck with your course, and do tell you're students that our Teahouse volunteers are always here to help or guide them, should they ever need additional practical support with editing. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 

football kits / current events

This is in suggestion that :

a) Football kits in the "infobox football biography" thingies show the logo and sponsor (in correct proportion to the kit . For example , a F.C Barcelona kit shall show the kit maker , in this case Nike , the sponsor Rakuten and the barca logo in c.p with the kit .)

b) Players , clubs , managers , referees , etc. when currently involved in a match shall show a 'involved in a current event' template at the top of the page (for example if Manchester City F.C. are in a match with United , then it will show on the pages of these clubs , players on the field and on the bench , managers , etc. 'this subject is involved in a current event '

c) Scores , lineups , etc. be updated on the season's pages , for example Liverpool 19-20 season , every 15 minutes . 005X (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi and welcome 005X! While you have interesting suggestions, they would have to be made here. Chetsford (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chetsford and 005X: That's not the right place for these comments. Only the middle one is relevant to that template you linked to, and even then it's probably something that should be discussed at WT:FOOTY, as it would garner more of a response. That said, I don't imagine any of these suggestions will gain any traction whatsoever. – PeeJay 12:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Is the article correct and submitted correctly?

Hello! Please tell me what to do in the following situation. The draft of my article was sent for revision, I made the necessary additions. Are they sufficient? Do I need more links? Is the revised version of Draft: Vitaly Tepikin presented correctly? I express my deep gratitude to the editors who work with me.5Traveler (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

For me, It still lacks sources. Most of the article should be sourced. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 14:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Changes have been removed

Dear all,

14 days ago I edited a Wikipedia website (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_population_concern_organizations) I added the organization I am working for and which also deals with population concerns. However, a few days later, the organization has been removed again besides I mad a quote about it at the end of the page. What has happened? How can I prevent another remove of the organization I am working for when I edit the page again?

Thanks so much for your help.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by RFPD-editor (talk • contribs) 14:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@RFPD-editor: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I will review this in a moment, but you must first immediately go to your user talk page User talk:RFPD-editor and read the information I will shortly put there about changing your username. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I have reviewed your edit; the page you edited is not for listing every such organization in existence. It is only for listing those that merit (and in most cases have) Wikipedia articles. This is why your edit was removed as linkspam. I have posted information to your user talk page about how to declare and contribute with a conflict of interest as you seem to have, please review this carefully once your username is changed. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Help on draft article Red Circle Authors and future ones

I have made some minor edits since joining and got nice comments and feedback; somewhat encouraging & motivating stuff! But I have now had my first draft article rejected (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Red_Circle_Authors). I am confused by the comments, which read as standard ones. I have reviewed them carefully but am not sure what to do. 1) I tried to source everything very carefully with links to content in Wikipedia and also to multiple external references, which includes several leading newspapers (these include more than passing mentions). Journalists on these publications have written about Red Circle Authors as it is notable for their readerships. I have also used other information in the public domain. 2) I have tried to write in a neutral style using sourced text, and multiple not single sources. 3) The page is for a publisher, Wikipedia has many such pages already, and all the authors cited in my draft have their own Wikipedia entries, and are notable important authors in their own right; as is the publisher hence its media coverage. 4) I did not include ISBNs and book blurbs or hyperbolic adjectives to promote the books and publisher so that the entry would not read like an advert as I wanted the entry to be factual information only. These points are all issues that the feedback raised saying they were lacking and the reasons for not being acceptable. I will work on the article more, but does anyone have any suggestions of what I need to change or delete to meet Wikipedia's review criteria or should do next? I would be very grateful for feedback as this will guide me for future submissions. It is rather off-putting and makes me think it might just be better to focus on minor edits and suggestions in the future. Many thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide.---WikiGeoffrey (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, WikiGeoffrey Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank yoo for your question. I think many of us here had experience of having pages they've created either rejected or proposed for deletion. The Articles for Creation process is designed to assist new editors by giving them feedback on what's wrong, and  Theroadislong did just that in their rejection notice. Remember that this is an encyclopaedia about notable subjects. We're interested to see why Red Circle is notable, using independent reliable sources to demonstrate that. We don't care what the publishers have written in their own blogs and webpages. Try cutting out all content that does not go into great depth about the subject. Sentences like "Japan’s long history of blending brevity and beauty, as well as the nation’s history of elegant and brilliantly creative short form literary formats, are the reasons why Red Circle Authors decided to launch its publishing programme with a series of mini books." and "It conducts bespoke projects; and commissions and publishes books on behalf of a select and curated group of highly regarded Japanese contemporary authors in English." are not neutral, encyclopaedic phrases, but are promotional in tone. Not only that - you copied that straight from their website, which is a violation of our policies. My advice is to read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which requires three or more detailed independent sources to demonstrate that others have taken note of this, amongst innumerable other publishing companies in the world. Finally, should you have a direct or indirect connection with this publisher, you must declare that connection according to our policy on Conflict of Interest. I hope this gives you the feedback you sought. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi WikiGeoffrey. The draft reads as in fairly glowing praise of the company. It was rejected as an advertisement, and reads like one. <snip>Partial removal of content, as redundant with Nick Moyes's post I e/c'ed with.</snip> Of the sources I could check (a number of the links are dead), they appear to be:

• a) by Red Circle Authors itself (not independent);
• b) user-generated content;
• c) websites of unknown provenance (not clearly reliable sources); and
• d) where independent sources are used, they are not about Red Circle Authors, but about books by authors who have published through it.

Can you find some entirely independent, reliable, secondary sources that substantively write directly about Red Circle Authors? If so, first comply with WP:PAID before you do anything else, and then rewrite the article in your own words to include only information verified by those sources. See if you can do so without using any adjectives. (Only then might you fill in some purely basic factual details from primary sources.) If those secondary sources don't exist, don't use up any more of your valuable time on this.​ Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Very helpful feedback. I have removed the sentences suggested which tip it into advert like article and tried to make the references better and more clear. The Japan Times article and the Nikkei Asia Review article cite the publisher directly. I am not being paid to write this but do know some of the people involved. How do I declare this? --WikiGeoffrey (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@WikiGeoffrey: See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_disclose_a_COI for guidance. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Have added the COI notice on my user page. --WikiGeoffrey (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Padma tsho history

1. * Pema tsho was a great Heroine from Khyungpo, Tibet. The people believe she is great Dakini (Kha' 'gro)
2. when she was you lady, she pretended fell her basket (square basket for raise for separate barley grain and straw) wind window from 3rd floor to ground, when she saw a young master of Buddhism Lama. The reason she wanted to show her skill of superpower, So — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogyan Rgzin (talk • contribs) 05:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi and welcome, Ogyan Rgzin! The information you've provided on Pema tsho is a fascinating tale, to be sure. Thank you for sharing it! Best - Chetsford (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ogyan Rgzin, and welcome to the Teahouse. I wondered why you had placed that information here, but I see that you have already tried to create a draft about Padma Tsho, and somebody has deleted it. I'm afraid that placing an argument here doesn't really help - I had to go looking to discover even why you had posted it here.

Wikipedia requires everything in it to come from a reliable published source, not just from things people know. Do you have scholarly books or articles about Tsho? (They don't have to be online, or in English, though it's easier for editors to review if they are). If you have, then you could start again, after reading your first article, which explains the (really quite difficult) process of creating a new article. Another thing you could do would be to go to WikiProject Tibet, and see if you can find people there who would work with you on this. One more point: I notice that you have some difficulty in writing English: have you tried the Tibetan Wikipedia? --ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Can someone help me create an article about Kinloss Primary School please. But they never asked? (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@But they never asked?: Please read our notability guideline on corporations: WP:NCORP. Schools fall under corporations, and additional information can be found at WP:NSCHOOLS (further context about schools in general) and WP:NHS (notability quidelines about high schools). Remember: All articles require require significant coverage in reliable source that are independent of the topic.

I also saw this edit you made. You reverted it quickly enough, but as a warning, please do not post rash insults in the Teahouse.

If you have any questions, then be sure to reply. –eggofreason^talk 18:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

AND.... blocked as a sockpuppet David notMD (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Can too many unsuccessful speedy delete request result in an indefinite block?

Hyperius1255 (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hyperius1255: If the behavior is disruptive, yes. RudolfRed (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Hyperius1255 - I agree with the above that any sort of disruptive editing can result in a block, even an indefinite one. That is a strange question, especially since it does not appear that you have made any speedy deletion requests. I would think, and I would like the view of an administrator, that how too many unsuccessful speedy deletion requests were dealt with would depend on whether it appeared that they were misguided interpretations of the criteria for speedy deletion, or whether they were either random or vindictive. I would think that too many good-faith but misguided speedy deletion requests would result in explanations of why they were denied with explanations of the policies. If they persisted, the tagger might be given a more severe warning or taken to WP:ANI and possibly topic-banned from such requests. Speedy deletion nominations that were clearly just random would probably be treated as vandalism, and would soon be viewed as evidence of being not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Malicious requests would be treated as malicious requests. That is a strange question. Don't put beans in your ears. The beans might swell, and you might not hear your father telling you what to do, and that wouldn't excuse your ignoring him. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

At a guess this and this speedy requests as well as this User talk:Drmies#Could you please check this speedy deletion request I made? are what prompted this thread. I would suggest that the OP read the link to criteria for speedy deletion that Robert McClenon noted in his reply. MarnetteD|Talk 21:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

De Grote Molen, Broeksterwâld

The page De Grote Molen, Broeksterwoude should be moved to De Grote Molen, Broeksterwâld to match the current spelling of the village name. The retarded automatic filter stops me from performing this move. PDZ124169 (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Maproom (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Revive the question "How or who can edit the Pope Pius IX page, because there is an error on it?"

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for the answer on the Tea House page. I did get account access also. Thank you. I decided not to change the Pope Pius IX page after further study. I studied and emailed a Marian Priest, Fr. Donald Calloway, MIC, from whom I received no response. I came to this conclusion:

Upon further study, Wikipedia's Pope Pius IX article is well written. Ubi Primum (02/02/1849) does begin the process of confirming St. Mary's Immaculate Conception. Wikipedia notes that in 1854 was declared the Immaculate Conception which is Ineffabilis Deus (12/08/1854). I found that in Papal Encyclicals online in English language. I also do not comprehend the difference or relationship between the Papal Encyclical Ineffibilis Deus dated 1854 and the Ex Cathedra declaration of the Immaculate Conception. So I am well to leave the Wikipedia article on Pope Pius IX alone.

Father Calloway has a book "Champions of the Rosary." Pope Pius IX was indeed a Marian Pope. In future I think it would be cool to put a link to Fr. Calloway's Champions of the Rosary on each of the subjects Wikipedia pages, for example St. Padre Pio, Popes Pius XII and Pope Pius IX, etc. There are maybe twenty people or so. I emailed Fr. Calloway about that. Waiting.

Regards, Mr. Michael Griffin February 3, 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FD00:51C0:5560:EBC7:D014:946D (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mr Griffin. Thank you for your appreciation (on behalf of the body of Wikipedia editors - I wasn't involved in that discussion, but it's nice when somebody does feel they've been listened to and engaged with). The best place to make this sort of suggestion is on the talk pages of the relevant articles. What I will note, however, is that Wikipedia is very cautious about accepting external links in articles, unless they are reliable sources being cited as a reference. If your idea is to add some information to each of those articles, then provided the source is regarded by Wikipedia as reliable, that is probably fine - though it is always possible for an editor to argue that even though a particular claim is well-supported it is not significant or relevant enough to be worth including in an encyclopaedia. But adding the same external link to several articles is often regarded as LINKSPAM, and you would need to justify their inclusion. --ColinFine (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on first article

I'm looking for comments and suggestions on my first article User:Ilgamoot/Bay Meadows I plan to change the title to "Bay Meadows II (Neighborhood)" Please comment on the talk page for the article. The talk page also has a To Do list of things I know I want to add. Thanks for your help! Ilgamoot (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi and welcome, Ilgamoot! A few thoughts from my first glance:

• This shouldn't be at your Userpage but at your sandbox. You may want to move it over to there to continue working on it.
• Per WP:EXT, there should not be external links in the body of the article.
• The image in the infobox can omit the brackets and should also not include the thumb sizing and caption. The infobox will size it correctly and the caption should go in the "image_caption" field.
• Bay Meadows II should be in bold in the first use in the lead.
• In general, sections like "controversy" are discouraged; content from such sections are better integrated into other sections of the article, such as "History".

I haven't looked at the sources so I can't comment on notability but, overall, I think this is excellent work for a first article! Chetsford (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Chetsford. I wasn't clear on using the sandbox vs creating a new page. It seemed to me that it would be easier to just make a page because I planned to move it into main space at some point. Doing that with the sandbox seemed odd. Thanks for the note about external links. I'll fix those. Will fix the image and bold the first use of Bay Meadows II, as well. Need to think some more about controversy. On a related note: I'm a resident of this neighborhood, but not in any way related to the city or the developer. I've tried to adhere to the NPOV requirements. Should I disclose my residency in some way on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilgamoot (talk • contribs) 02:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

David Sawin

I am trying to figure out if the article is still under review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenia Sawin (talk • contribs) 16:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi - yes, it looks like Draft:David_Sawin is still awaiting review. There is a bit of a backlog at AfC, so it might take a while for someone to get around to reviewing it. CheersGirthSummit _(blether) 16:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:David Sawin is in AfC queue for review. As you know, the first submission was declined. You can continue to work on the draft. Two important points: given you share last name with David, you should create a mention on your User page explaining the relationship. This falls under declaring conflict of interest. People with COI often find it difficult to achieve a neutral point of view about the topic, so declaring COI is for transparency. Second, at the end of every comment, type four of ~. This 'signs' the comment with your User name. David notMD (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Eugenia Sawin - You also asked about your submission at the Articles for Creation Help Desk at about the same time. Some of the same editors are regularly at both the Teahouse and the AFC Help Desk (or at any two forums in Wikipedia). It isn't helpful to ask the same question at two places at the same time. You are likely to get the same answer, but it is also likely to annoy the reviewers. It is also likely to annoy the reviewers if you create multiple copies of your draft, which you have done. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

This page is about Tasty tibet.

I am new to wikipedia and had published a wiki article but it was deleted on terms that it had promotional content. I have created new content and would like it if someone could give me review on how to go about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mot1992 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mot1992, welcome to the Teahouse. I've looked at the history of your contributions and can't see any new content, so I'm assuming you haven't yet tried to add it. That's good. I'm not an adminstrator, so cannot see the previously-deleted content you wrote. But before you do anything else, please go back and read all the comments left for you about you last attempt to create a page about 'Tasty tibet', especially your obligation to declare any Conflict of Interest you may have. In other words, do you work for the company,or are working in its behalf, or friends with its owners? If you are, then you should not be writing about this business, and must declare that conflict. The second thing you need to do is to read our criteria for accepting articles about companies. It's at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). So, because we are not here to promote yours or any one else's business, you will simply be wasting your time - and ours - if you are unable to provide three to five in-depth, independent articles which talk about that business in detail. (Ignore blogs, own website and press releases, etc., and see WP:NOTADVERTISING). If you still believe you have enough material to merit an encyclopaedia article here, then you should prepare that draft using the Articles for Creation process. Hope that helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Change username

Hi, I would like to change my username but don't know how to. Can someone just let me know ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystery Bros (talk • contribs)

Hello and welcome, Mystery Bros. Please see WP:RENAME. Chetsford (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mystery Bros: Because you have made so few edits from this account, simply abandon it and start again by registering a new username. That makes less work for our admins to deal with. You should probably leave a note to declare the link between the two accounts, but the most important thing now is never ever to use the old account name again. Using two accounts is a serious breach of our policies, but changing to using a new account name is absolutely fine. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Restricted topics

Hi guys, I have heard from multiple editor that Cryptocurrency and Blockchain are restricted topics on wikipedia and we aren't supposed to write any articles about these topics. Is it true? Omo95 (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Omo95. Your sources seem to have misunderstood. We have articles on both blockchain and cryptocurrency, and as with any Wikipedia articles, anybody is welcome to improve them. However, both articles are subject to active community-authorised general sanctions, because of repeated attempts to use the articles for promotional or non-neutral editing. These sactions tightly regulate editing behaviour in those and related articles. If you wish to contribute to them, please follow those links and read them carefully before you do anything else. --ColinFine (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (I've written this so might as well post it, even if Colin has said it all above): Hi, Omo95. Thanks for your Teahouse question. 'Restricted' is not perhaps quite the right word, but, yes, these are topics which are subject to General sanctions being applied. Please follow that link to find out more but, in essence, they are one of a number of topics which are prone to promotional and non-encyclopaedic editing that special sanctions can be immediately applied to any editors who breaks our rules on editing. So, even those editors who make acceptable edits to pages subject to these sanctions may receive a notification message. (Don't panic about that) But, having been warned of the need for extra care in editing and referencing, editors who do transgress may find themselves immediately blocked from editing as a result of those sanctions being in force. This isn't done willy-nilly - it's designed to ensure productive cooperative editing, where either strong opinions or strong desire to promote one topic or company often occur. You will also find a little more information at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Hope this answers your question. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Problem creating a new article/ page.

Hi Teahouse, It's Kanika this side. I am willing to write an article on a topic which is not available on wikipedia. And the problem that I am facing right now is that which is the best way of creating a new page/ article in wikipedia? I would be grateful if you could please explain to me the procedure. I've been struggling with this for quite some time now and yet I have not been able to figure out the right way of creating a new page/ article. Please help me with this as a little help from your end would mean the world to me.

Thank you, Kanika — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waliakanika (talk • contribs) 10:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Waliakanika, welcome to the Teahouse! I think Wikipedia:Your first article may give you a useful set of most important clues about writing articles on Wikipedia. --CiaPan (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Waliakanika: I've left a welcome message on your talk page - it's stuffed full of useful links you might find helpful to get you started. Might I suggest you try our interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure which shows you the basics of how things work here. there are 15 different badges to gather on your userpage as you follow the learning exercises. (it doesn't always display too well on a mobile, though - just to warn you) Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Question about updating Category:Wikipedia articles with ORCID identifiers

Hi Teahouse,

I have a question about Category:Wikipedia articles with ORCID identifiers. It hasn't had an update for some time and I am not sure if it reflects pages which more recently added ORCIDs? Would this be the usual lag time for category pages, or is it eligible for a null edit to bring it up to date? (sorry for these strange questions, I am still learning). Thank you for your time! :) SunnyBoi (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you give an example of an article which you think ought to be in there but isn't? Have you tried purging your cache? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

First Article

Hi guys

Can someone please help me on approving this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Denny_(singer-songwriter)

It looks fine to me with references so I don't understand how it is declined?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.117.73.126 (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• The editor who rejected the submission left a comment explaining why. You need to read it - particularly the bit that says "This draft does not appear to indicate which of the musical notability criteria is satisfied.", and improve the article to address those concerns. Articles are only accepted if the subject passes the notability criteria, and if you can't find any sources to show that Denny meets the criteria, it may be too soon for an article on him. Neiltonks (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

EU GDPR non compliant website in References

Hi I just seen the references in National Council on Severe Autism and can't access one of the reference sites, due to one website being GDPR non compliant. Could any EU and non EU Wikipedians advice me what to do, thanks--Chricon79 (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi and welcome Chricon79! "Could any EU and non EU Wikipedians advice me what to do" Wait 54 days and try again? Just kidding. Insofar as I'm aware, and someone may have a better suggestion than this, your only option would be to try to access it through a VPN. If there's something specific you'd like to check at it, though, I'd be happy to do so and let you know what it says. If that would be useful, feel free to ping me on my Talk page. Chetsford (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Chetsford and thank you for your answer, off-wiki non EU contacts in the USA have informed me that they can access the reference. It is the issue of an geo blocked reference being a valid source I have my doubts about.--Chricon79 (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I see, that makes sense. We don't really have a policy establishing that sources which are unavailable to some editors are inherently non-RS and there are some areas which selectively or geographically block content, such as the EU, PRC, etc. For instance, we frequently cite articles to newspapers archived in newspapers.com, which is a subscription based service to which not everyone has access. That said, of course, persons inside EU member states, and some other countries that block content, may be at a disadvantage in that they are unable to conduct due diligence to determine the veracity of a source that does not meet GDPR standards and which they are, therefore, unable to access. I think, in this situation, one would have to ask an editor who has unfiltered online access to check on it and report back, which is a procedure similar to what occurs in A- and FA- review when certain sources are not accessible (either because they're offline only, or gated). Chetsford (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll ask US biased friendly editor to look into that for me or wait for Brexit--Chricon79 (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

For clarity - EU states don't block access to websites under GDPR (which is a data protection regime). What has happened is that some companies from outside the EU, whose websites might not comply with the requirements of GDPR, have chosen to make those websites unavailable in EU countries (which they're perfectly entitled to do, of course). Sadly, this includes some US news sources, which is why this issue arises for Wikipedia users in the EU. Neiltonks (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Concur with Neiltonks' explanation - this is becoming an increasing problem for those of us in the EU, (and I suspect it will not disappear overnight if/when the UK leaves the EU) as we cannot check basic information on multiple web-sites. Could a "please check this reference, as I can't" noticeboard be set up? or is there another work-around? - Arjayay (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Confused new user

Hi Editors Have a question. A page currently exists for "Electronic Flight Bag". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_flight_bag

As an addendum to what has been written in the History section, would the following be allowed:

When one of the leading EFB advocates, Southwest Airlines, migrated their EFB program to iPad tablets in 2015 one of their main concerns was how to protect a costly program asset – the tablet itself. Their original EFB roadmap anticipated a tablet breakage rate of 4% annually. Their use of a PIVOT case, manufactured by FlyBoys Inc. lowered the overall breakage rate for all 9,500 managed iPad EFB devices for the last 4 years to 0.04% - one of the lowest rates in the industry. The unexpected drop in repair costs (and associated human administrative costs) has allowed Southwest to cancel their insurance program on their 9,500 iPad tables and deploy the savings to other areas of their EFB program.

I am a current employee of FlyBoys Inc. If the above is acceptable, how do I properly make the contribution?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJ010110 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello KJ010110. Welcome back. I know nothing about the topic, but this reads heavily as advertising literature, not a statement of fact reported by independent sources. You didn't cite a source or give a url, so is this insider information, and how relevant is fine detail about case design to the topic? I'm not sure it really is very significant, unless you're in the industry. Any such content would very swiftly be deleted as WP:NOTADVERTISING. But thank you for recognising your Conflict of Interest. You now need to follow that link to see how to add a COI template to your userpage, and to see advice that the way conflicted editors should approach such matters is to post their proposed text (and sources) on the talk page of the article as an Edit Requestfor which a special template is available. Were I to be involved in making such an edit, I'd look simply want to say something along the lines of: "Early high levels of breakages to EFB equipment were addressed through rugged case design (insert ref to independent source here)" Does this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Could I also just add that your sandbox draft at User:KJ010110/PIVOT is unbelievably promotional at the present time, and will stand absolutely no chance of becoming an encyclopaedia article unless you cut it right back and only base it upon what other reliable sources have written, in detail, about that company. Ignore what you know, what your boss tells you to say, or what your company website and PR waffle says. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for the criteria. And don't forget that COI declaration! Best of luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

BikeBD Article

I have a website called BikeBD. It has been 6 years a run the website. Right now I wants to creat a wikipedia for my website. But the problem is i don't creat it properly.

I think maybe there is some problem. I used template and try to give all the data. But I cant find my wiki when i search it.

can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bikebd (talk • contribs) 15:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bikebd. Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm really sorry to have to explain to you that you cannot use Wikipedia to promote your blog or website. We are an encyclopaedia of notable topics and, as laudable as your website may be, promoting it here is not OK. I see that since you've posted here someone has already placed what we call a Speedy deletion notice on your user page, which is where you had created it. That, too was not the right place for any draft article. Should you wish to contribute to biking and Bangladeshi topics here, do feel free. But please don't be upset by what has just happened. You simply misunderstood what Wikipedia is for and hadn't realised that it cannot host content about your or any body else's website unless certain very specific conditions of Notability for websites are met. You might like to read this page about creating new articles, as well as appreciating that we have had to block your username because it appears to represent a company, brand or group of editors and, sadly, that too is against our policies. That shouldn't stop you choosing a more individual and non-promotional username if you still want to contribute usefully elsewhere here. I'm sorry this reply doesn't bring much solace for all you efforts. Best wishes: Nick Moyes (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Bnha Wiki and Wikipedia And Using wikis as external links

In the Bnha(My hero Academia) page, there is a section about the characters. This section of the page doesn't give much info, So can I add the class 1-a page from the My hero Acediama wiki. Can I Link it in the external links part? Thanx _(· Ɛ · ⅃ ≤ )_

Denkiden (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Go for it, Be Bold! Idiacanthus1 (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Nasal septum deviation

 Note: Nasal_septum_deviation#Diagnosis.--Hildeoc (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Do you have a question regarding Wikipedia? RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 17:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The OP is evidently drawing attention to an article section that is still only in outline form, as they have also done on the Science Ref Desk. Given your User name, RhinosF1, perhaps you are more qualified than most other editors to improve the deficiency :-)? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.251.247 (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I need to create a page about myself, can I do that?

I need to create a page about myself, can I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdschandra (talk • contribs) 19:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pdschandra: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is strongly advised that you not attempt to write an article(not "page") about yourself. Please review the autobiography policy written at WP:AUTO. People naturally write favorably about themselves, and Wikipedia is looking to have a neutral point of view. If you meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability and truly merit an article, someone will write about you sooner or later. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects, and not what the subject wants to say about themselves. Keep in mind it is not necessarily desirable to have a Wikipedia article about yourself; see this link. Any content, good or bad, can appear in an article about you as long as it is sourced to an independent reliable source, and you would have no special control over it as the subject. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Navboxes at the top of a page

I want to split a long list into several pages (but just one article) and want to place a link to the pages at the top like List of House members of the 42nd Parliament of Canada has. I've searched (for the box and also how to create additional pages), but I don't know what they're called and can't find anything. Help, please. Aurornisxui (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The top of that page has a transclusion of the template {{CanHOC}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

pontencial superpowers

what do u think is the most likely nation on earth to achieve superpower status — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahyena (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dahyena: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This page is for asking questions related to using or editing Wikipedia. It is not for asking general discussion questions like this. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

But we do have an article Potential superpowers. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a superpower in the Information Age. David notMD (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Moving article to the main net

Hello, first time creating an article. Will an article automatically move into the public domain after a few days and the "draft" part of the title be removed, or do I have to do this myself after I have been verified?

Thank you

Sybl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sibyl Hathaway (talk • contribs) 01:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sibyl Hathaway. Drafts don't automatically become articles; they need to be manually moved from the draft namespace to the article namespace. You can move Draft:Titania McGrath to the article namespace yourself as explained in WP:MOVE, but I wouldn't you do so because I don't think it would survive there very long. Basically, as explained in WP:42, only subject which have been shown to have received significant coverage in reliable sources (independent and secondary) are considered Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article to be written about them, and I'm not sure if McGrath even meets Wikipedia:Notability (people).

So, my suggestion to you is to keep looking for more substantial coverage of McGrath in reliable sources (it might be a case that it's just WP:TOOSOON to write a stand-alone article about her) and then submit it for review when you think it's ready by clicking on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. A reviewer will look the draft over and determine whether it's ready for article status. If the draft is accepted, the reviewer will move it to the article namespace and take care of any associated clean up; if the draft is declined, the reviewer will explain why and post suggestions on ways to improve the draft.

FWIW, you're not required to submit a draft for review, but drafts approved by reviewers do seem to have a better chance of surviving as articles than those which are moved directly by their creators. Writing a proper Wikipedia article can be quite hard and many first time attempts often end up declined;however, there's no limit on the number times you can submit a draft as long as you continue to make improvements and don't just simply keep submitting the same thing over and over again. You can find some tips on writing articles in Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also consider taking the Wikipedia:Adventure since it will give you a chance to learn more about Wikipedia editing while you're actually editing articles. It might also be a good idea to ask for help at a WikiProject like Wikipedia:WikiProject Women, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography or even Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet culture for more specific suggestions on ways to improve the draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Jason Davidson

To all concerned. I do apologise to everyone involved with me trying to update my sons stats. I now understand there are strict steps involved and I didn’t understand this before. I just wanted to update his Wikipedia page which is nearly 2 years out of date. But I respect the process and concerns everyone has. I won’t bother anyone again with Wikipedia Good luck with you endeavours Thank you and all the best. AD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.71.68 (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 124.188.71.68. While it's nice of you to apologize, many people make the same mistake so you'll be fine as long as you don't keep repeating that mistake over and over again. From you contribution history, it looks like Jason Davidson is the article you've been trying to edit. If you're truly Jason's dad, then you'ree going to be seen as having a conflict of interest with respect to anything written about him on Wikipedia. This means you should take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia and edit only according to these relevant policies and guidelines. This means you should really avoid directly editing the article except in certain specific cases as explained in WP:COIADVICE. If the information in the article is outdated, etc., you can propose that changes be made at Talk:Jason Davidson by making an edit request.

Finally just going to add that if you're also editing as AD1960, then you need to be very careful of trying to use multiple accounts as explained in WP:MULTIPLE. It's best to pick one account and try to always use that since it will avoid any unnecessary confusion or any misunderstanding with respect to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Add to Search.

Searched for data about the 'Fort St. John Hospital Foundation', but went nowhere. Wanted to know about their financial obligations, annual statement, what percentage of donations is going directly to beneficiaries, is it a trustworthy undertaking. Can someone, at arm's length from the Foundation, include in Wiki, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.181.181.205 (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Fort St. John Hospital Foundation seems to employ three persons with oversight from an eight-member board and revenue of $1.3 million. Financial documents may be available from the foundation. Tamanoeconomico (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Aging COI editor with an old LTA problem

Hi,

What's the best way to get some unaffiliated editors watching an article so I don't end up there alone with a persistent sockpuppet with a battleground mentality?

The issue is that, being an editor with a conflict of interest, I can't revert just any tendentious editing if doing so could be cast as controversial. Which it is invariably framed to do.

Disruptive edits don't last long if there is more than one editor watching a page.

The problem is I don't know how to just say, "hey, someone else watch this page with me". I can report the sock to SPI, I can ask for article peer reviews, or requests for comment but none of those options quite scratch the itch of just getting the article watched.

The page in question is Brahma Kumaris.

Thanks, Bksimonb (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Bksimonb, you go to the talk page and make an edit request following the instructions at WP:COI. Placing an edit request template adds the article to a list which people watch. Be sure to use the proper form and provide reliable independent sources. John from Idegon (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you've had to step in twice in 2018 (and also back in 2016), and actually, Ravensfire has also been there to do reverts. That does not seen too bad, but to consider that advice to solicit help. And maybe the SPI will help. David notMD (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I was trying not to step in at all but from Dec 2018 reverts stopped happening so I had to step in to make low-level reverts. The LTA obviously saw I was still active and created another account to have a poke at me. It was then that I realised I was now probably the only one left there. I have already reported the suspected sock to SPI.

Actually, I like John from Idegon's suggestion. If the aim is to get more eyes on the article then engaging with the community in any constructive context is a good idea. Even after posting here, I see a couple of editors have already stopped by to make some improvements to the article which is a positive result.

Bksimonb (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Can i use pexels images in Wikipedia, which has mentioned in their licences that we are free to use it anywhere ?

Though i know their are millions of free pictures available in wikimedia, their no require but can we use images from pexels in Wikipedia :-

https://www.pexels.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocky 734 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Rocky 734 and welcome to the Teahouse.

Some of the content on Pexels is licensed with "CC0" which is definitely a license compatible for use with Wikipedia. The "Pexcels license" appears to be quite liberal, but it's not exactly the same as the CC BY-SA license that is commonly used on Commons. I'd want you to get a more expert opinion on its use from experts on Commons rather than the less expert opinion we can provide here at the Teaouse. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, there are already quite a few pexels photos on Commons, so apparently the license is acceptable. See c:Category:Files from Pexels for more info. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reply jmcgnh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocky 734 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Declined submission due to work in progress tag

Hi, I started working on an article and used my own space (if that makes sense) to draft it. The article is WayneBu/LEGO WeDo There was always a button to submit for review so I figured when I was ready I could do so. And I did. The article was subsequently declined with this message: "Resubmit when you're set, There's tag showing this is a work-in-progress page." Thanks. My questions (at the bottom of the page): Where is this tag? How do I get rid of it? Wouldn't pressing the Submit button indicate I was ready to have the article reviewed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WayneBu (talk • contribs) 06:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The "work-in-progess" language comes from the {{userspace draft}} template. I think the reviewer misinterpreted it, perhaps through lack of experience at reviewing; many drafts are initially submitted as userspace drafts.

Another reviewer has moved your draft to draft space at Draft:LEGO WeDo where you may now submit it again, if you think it's ready. (I was about to do the move, but they beat me to it.) — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Given your User name, it appears that you are the author of five of the references. What is your connection to LEGO? David notMD (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Become A Host

Hey there, when i click on the teahouse "Become A Host" and try to fill in my details it doesnt let me, can anyone help?? Jeriqui123 (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You presumably failed to read the bit at WP:Teahouse/Host start where it says: "»Have been here at least 30 days and have made at least 500 edits?" --David Biddulph (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

yeah sorry :) Jeriqui123 (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Najmuddin

I had written a article about Najmuddin. I had given the full description about him. Najmuddin was a renowned person and politicians. He was a Member of Lesiglative Assembly from Bihar :I

MLA

Country India

Country India

Country :India State: Bihar District: Kishanganj Constituency (Bidhan Sabha): Bahadurganj previous constituency No. 133 Now Constituency Area 52

Lok Sabha Constituency Area: 10 Kishanganj.

short links: (Bahadurganj Bidhan Sabha (You can check Bahadurganj Bidhan Sabha Constituency wikipedia)

Please review approve my article. State: Bihar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yovraj123 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You need to read the feedback in the pink box at the top of Draft:Shree Najmuddin. Your draft has no references, so will not be approved. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Edits

I've Edited A Page 3 hours Ago,But Still It Doesn't Appear — Preceding unsigned comment added by BONGINKOSI (talk • contribs) 16:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, BONGIKOSI. Your contribution history doesn't show any edits in the last three hours, except to your Sandbox, the AFC Help page, and here. It looks as if you failed to save your edits for some reason. What page were you trying to edit? --ColinFine (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Signing again because I got the user-name wrong: BONGINKOSI. --ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't vote in the photo competition please help

I tried to vote in the competition but ever time it loads in a particular set of images for viewing it looks like its logging me in and then I can no longer vote. Am I doing something wrong?, do you have to click on or go to the images actual page to vote on it?, or am is my account not legitimate enough or something else. One last note: I think the competition takes place on Wikicommons so is this the wrong place to ask this type of question?. (thanks for any response)

@Government Man: According to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2018 you must have more than 75 edits as of January 1, 2019 to be eligible to vote. You don't have enough edits. RudolfRed (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer i suspected something like this to stop bots — Preceding unsigned comment added by Government Man (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Posting messages on the 'talk' section

Hello! I haven't quite figured out how to post a new message on a 'User talk' page yet.

I'd be grateful if anyone could help.

Thanks, Charlie.

CharlieZPP (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

CharlieZPP Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Posting to a user talk page is not that much different than posting here. You can either click "Edit" to open the edit window for the entire page, and scroll down to the bottom to make your edit, or you can click "New Section" which opens up a blank edit window and blank header for you to fill in, then once it is saved it will be placed at the bottom of the user talk page. You can test this by attempting to post to your own user talk page, User talk:CharlieZPP. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Question

Question came into my mind...

Are people allowed to remove warnings that was in their talk page?

--TheWinRat (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Generally, old stuff, like getting trouted, yes. Some people archive older Talk content, others delete. An essential point - if the warning is about an article you are editing, and you want to continue editing it, leave relevant warnings intact. This allows the same or a different editor to return to your Talk and upgrade the warning. You have also been cautioned about being too speedy to apply a Speedy delete, so perhaps stop that. David notMD (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

If you were thinking about Bobby The Door Mouse, perhaps that editor's Talk page blanking was too fast, but the editor has not returned to the article in question, nor been accused of any other vandalism. Think of it as a beginner's mistake, and let the editor go forward without a Scarlet Letter on their Talk page. David notMD (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Thewinrat, see WP:UP#CMT. With the exception of a few kinds of notices listed there, a user is allowed to remove notices from their user talk page. —teb728 t c 20:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia profil

Please can anybody help me and made my wikipedia page full...My name is Dino Radoš and im basketball player.I just want to know how can editors edit my page,what can I do about it? Dino rados 12 (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 876 --DannyS712 (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dino rados 12 and DannyS712: Are you talking about Dino Radoš article? Due to your obvious Conflict of interest I'd suggest you keep from editing the page yourself. Instead describe desired extension to the article at the corresponding talk page: Talk:Dino Radoš, as described at Wikipedia:Edit requests.

Please note that Wikipedia in general is not interested in what people want to say about themselves, but mainly in what others say about them (see WP:PRIMARY for rules against using primary sources). Taking it into account please provide WP:RELIABLE sources for any information you'd like to see added to the article. --CiaPan (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Please also be aware there is no such thing as your page at Wikipedia. What we are talking about is Wikipedia page about you. Please see WP:OWN for Wikipedia policy on the contents ownership. --CiaPan (talk)

@CiaPan: I'm not involved in this request, I just moved it to where it would be seen; I completely agree with everything you just said. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but I pinged you 'just in case...' (however I do not ping you now, as you don't seem interested in further contributing in this thread.) --CiaPan (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Properly attributing an image which is copyrighted

I have been given permission to use a copyrighted image by the University of B.C. archives, but am uncertain as to which copyright tag I should use. I was initially going to use

however the image is not to be freely used without consent from the archive. Please advise - thanks! Mie Iwasaki (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Mie Iwasaki. I am sorry to say that permission for use only on Wikipedia is not acceptable. —teb728 t c 19:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I've just been emailing with the archive and they are happy as long as they are credited with the image, so I will go ahead with the original tag I was going to use. Cheers!Mie Iwasaki (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)