Open main menu

Wikipedia β

WP teahouse logo.png

Most recent archives
695  696  697  698  699  700  701  702  703  704
705  706  707  708  709  710  711  712  713  714

can someone create a page for me?Edit

looking for someone to start a page for me that i can then add to and edit . My name is Justin Scheman I was on season 27 of the amazing race ..thanks for the help 21:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinClassic1 (talkcontribs)

@JustinClassic1: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read our policy on autobiographies at WP:AUTO.In short, it is highly discouraged for users to create or edit pages about themselves, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. Article subjects must be shown to be notable (please read WP:N) with independent reliable sources (WP:RS). I'm not certain that a reality show contestant would qualify, as there is likely not extensive in depth coverage of you that is independent of you. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I know .. thats why i asked someone else to start/write one for me .... a simple good search for Justin Scheman or Justin and Diana will show thousands of results. I was on one of the most dominant teams in the history of the most awarded reality show on TV The Amazing Race. I also had my proposal video go viral and was on a few TV shows because of it like rachael ray and right this minute ....I was on MTV's "The Grind" for two years featured in over 50 music videos and been on morning radio for 15 years ... there are wiki pages for people with much less "accomplishments" JustinClassic1 (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@JustinClassic1: Please read WP:OSE; each article is judged on its own merits. If you see pages that do not meet the notability guidelines (WP:BIO) feel free to propose their deletion. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, inappropriate pages get through, sometimes for years.
Millions of Google hits would not necessarily equate to notability. Quality sources matter much more than quantity. The sources need to be independent and give in depth coverage of you. If you truly feel that you meet the notability guidelines, you can post to Requested Articles to request an article be written, but it is severely backlogged and it may be some time before it is written. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
JustinClassic1 - I, of course, echo what 331dot said. That said, on a cursory search it does appear there are a number of quality WP:RS spanning a period of time; enough, anyway, for a short and concise article. The only thing to keep in mind is that nothing could be put in it that wasn't included in those sources so, depending on what appears on a closer examination, you might be setting yourself up for disappointment. The other thing to remember is that, once created, a WP article is pretty much forever. Finally, biographies include the good and the bad. I'm not sure if there's any "bad" out there but if there is (and if it's not something you want a centralized archive of), you may want to rethink this idea! If this all seems fine, though, please post to my Talk page and I'd be happy to try and provide some one-on-one assistance to see if something that met the AfC criteria could be put together. Chetsford (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
are one of you going to actually help me make the article? JustinClassic1 (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I, for one have, no interest, seeing as how you ask. Maybe other volunteer Teahouse hosts might like that kind of stuff. Were you a mollusc, an obscure vascular plant or an overlooked female scientist, I might have been motivated. Creating vanity pages aren't for me, I'm afraid. But you have had a very generous offer from Chetsford, so why are you still coming across so darned pushy? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Can Somebody help me to create a Wiki page for a celebrity?2405:204:D300:6BC4:C048:50FB:B6ED:9F2D (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
You've posted your question at the end of JustinClassic1's question. Is your question connected? If not, then please post new questions at the bottom of the page, and tell us who it is that you want to write about, or create a draft (such as Draft:person), remembering to base your draft on relible sources. If it is connected, then the answers above are appropriate. Dbfirs 20:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - @Chetsford and Nick Moyes: I don't intend to be rude, but what is the probability that JustinClassic1 is actually the Justin Scheman he claims to be? -Darouet (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
He may or may not be (we're not exactly talking about someone claiming to be Brad Pitt here). Out of a preponderance of caution I'd always assume he wasn't and try to be careful to refer to him by his username rather than the name of the IRL person the account claimed to be controlled by. However, regardless of whether he was Justin Scheman or a 13 year-old girl in Novosibirsk, that shouldn't impact the construction of his BLP as it would have to meet the same standards either way. Chetsford (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of page AND accused of being sock puppetEdit


I've been retained to create a Wikipedia page--which I disclosed on my "talk" page--per Wikipedia guidelines. I thought disclosure would meet the guidelines--is that not the case? Also, I have just been accused of being a "sock puppet" for another person who is a chronic editor for hire, and I most certainly am not. I am not sure how to defend that.

Moreover, I'm flummoxed about why the page was taken down. It is not promotional: it describes the company and its products, and it adheres to the Wikipedia guidelines ( It does not cite any self-promotional material and reflects notable third-party input from Gartner, Deloitte, Inc., the Wall Street Journal, and the like. It seems that the page is being punished because of the acts of the prior disreputable author, particularly when its peers in e-discovery and software aren't being removed from the site (e.g., Conduent, Recommind, Acquia (which includes some of the same links to Deloitte, for example, as the Zapproved article), Kentico, and the like).

My first foray into Wikipedia-land is certainly not turning out as I hoped! Any advice or help would be much appreciated.Kwalinsk (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwalinsk (talkcontribs) 01:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kwalinsk: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. While I can't view the deleted page (an administrator can) merely telling about a business is considered promotional on Wikipedia. You seem to be aware of the notability guidelines, you must show that this business meets the guidelines with independent reliable sources that have in depth coverage of the business(not interviews, press releases, basic announcements. or primary sources). You have dived right in to article creation, one of the most difficult things to successfully do here. You may want to read Your First Article to learn more.
Frankly you might want to give your client their money back as it will be difficult for you to simultaneously create a page they might want and that complies with Wikipedia guidelines. You cannot prevent others from editing it or lock it to the text you or your client might prefer. Having a Wikipedia article is not necessarily a good thing for any person or business, as any information, good and bad can be in it as long as it appears in an independent reliable source. 331dot (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Kwalinsk, I echo this statement. I am an admin, I have reviewed the deleted history and the multiple blocked accounts. Years ago I wrote this: User:JzG/And the band played on.... The same applies here, basically. Give them their money back. Also, your business model is unethical, but that's a side-issue. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Guy, I don't know why you think a freelance writing business is unethical. I'm a lawyer, and I write all kinds of copy for all types of businesses, and I pride myself on my ethics. I disclosed my affiliation, as per Wikipedia policy. I'm trying to do the right thing here. I've written one iteration of this page (not the prior ones), and I'm not sure why I'm being maligned here.Kwalinsk (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Guy, and to clarify, I've never written a Wikipedia page before. I read all the rules carefully before I started writing this one. I think I adhered to them. I think the history of the page is causing an issue, and that seems a bit unfair.Kwalinsk (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a volunteer-run charity-funded project. You are looking to monetise Wikipedia's popularity and reach, capitalising on years of work by people who were not paid a dime. That's unethical. The fact that you admit never having contributed anything to Wikipedia voluntarily underscores this. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Bio text boxesEdit


I'm looking for the format template for what I believe are called "infoboxes." This is the box that contains the factual bio of the person you're writing about - i.e. Name, Born, Occupations, Years Active, Website. I tried formatting it myself using the {{{ keys but I'm not sure I did it correctly. Is there a way to insert this, or am I missing a step or a button?


Octopus69Octopus69 (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. They are explained at WP:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Top tip: find an article that has an infobox that is similar to what you want, copy/paste it, and change the details. (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Octopus69: If you already know, what infobox you'd like to use, say a musical artist infobox, then go to that template page → {{Infobox musical artist}}, and you'll usually find examples of both shortened and expanded use, often with details explained about specific parameters. --CiaPan (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

glitch in a page I editEdit

I found a glitch on a page with a double underline underneath a word. When I click this they take me to an advertisement page. What is going on??? Songuitar333 (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Songuitar333 and welcome to the Teahouse.
Unless you can provide a link to the page where you are seeing this phenomenon, we can't help. There used to be browser add-ins ("toolbars") that would add advertising links to content based on keywords but I thought modern browsers generally discouraged that kind of behavior. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:FAQ/Readers#Why do I see commercial ads at Wikipedia? We have five million articles and no way to check your example without knowing it. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
See also this Help Desk thread: Wikipedia:Help desk#What's up with wikibuff? That is, ? It looks like wikipedia but redirects to advertisements. . Might be that instead. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
There is also a known issue in Firefox where you can have a piece of adware effecting your browser that does that. If you use firefox, try uninstalling and reinstalling it. John from Idegon (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

How to reopen an article-for-deletion discussionEdit

I would like to reopen an article-for-deletion discussion. The article was about a young politician Conor Lamb who is running for office in an important upcoming election. Since the first discussion, there has been significant coverage of Lamb in the media. Politico, NYTIMES and Washington Post have all featured a story about him. However, he has never held office. Unlike his opponent. This has led to the highly unsatisfactory situation that there is an article about this unique election with links to all Republican candidates but the Conor Lamb page is continually deleted (I tried to reinstate it). I am also a bit suspicious of the motives of some of the people involved with editing. In any case, it is now clear that Conor Lamb would pass any reasonable appraisal of his notability.

Just one example:

Here the link to the special election. It seems to me that if this election is so insignificant, this page too should be deleted. If not, both candidates are deserving of an article about them.,_2018#Democratic_convention

Quigley david (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Quigley david: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have some experience in political-related articles, and I can tell you that the problem you have with Conor Lamb is that the notability guidelines for politicians (WP:POLITICIAN) spell out clearly that merely running for a political office almost always does not make someone notable enough for an article. There are some exceptions to this (Christine O'Donnell is a notable one) but that is the general rule. The coverage of Mr. Lamb is all related to the fact that he is running for office(and much of it is likely intended to promote him as a candidate). If he wasn't running, there likely would not be any coverage and he would not be notable. That said, the exceptions that exist(such as O'Donnell) make it in because the coverage of the person rises to meet the general notability guideline; they have in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. I don't know if that is true of Mr. Lamb or not.
To get to your question, you could visit Deletion Review and make a proper request there, but I would urge you to read the instructions there carefully. The one opening I think you would have is to argue the third criterion listed there, "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". I think that the only way you would succeed is if you had sources only tangentially related to his seeking public office(or not at all) indicating how he is notable, such as in his legal career. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@331dot: Thank you for your help! Quigley david (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

31 hour blocks?Edit

Why do admins frequently choose to apply 31 hour blocks? ([1]) Although the number 31 has many interesting properties, it seems unusual that so many admins have chosen 31 hours as their preferred duration for a short term block. Billhpike (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting question! On the block page, there is a dropdown menu of standard times and 31 hours is one of them (between 24 and 36). The admin's guide also mentions that "31 hours is the standard duration for most blocks" but doesn't say why. But searching, I found that "why 31 hours?" gets asked quite frequently. The thinking is that if a vandal is blocked for 24 or 48 hours, they will simply come back at the same time the next day (or the day after), whilst adding a few more hours might disrupt their schedule and cause them to lose interest. As for why it's 31 hours and not a round number, it seems to date back to one particular admin's preference for prime numbers, which became a tradition and was enshrined in the software. – Joe (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Billhpike:. – Joe (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I suspect quite a few of us were looking forward to seeing that answer. Thanks, Joe. My favourite in that list is "18:48, 19 January 2018 Favonian blocked ***.***.**.* with an expiry time of 3 years, 6 hours, 32 minutes and 24 seconds". That's one lover of interesting numbers! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I think I recall an administrator saying that 31 hours was based partly on the idea that vandals were often students, and that a 31-hour block would cover that school day and the next school day, and that the 31-hour block was primarily intended for vandals (rather than other sorts who need blocking such as edit-warriors and flamers). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I also think that I recall seeing someone blocked until 2038, but that is sort of techie black humor for blocking them until the end of the world, because that is the Unix doomsday until they expand the size of the clock. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User talk page archivingEdit

Hi, I am this is not the right place to come for help of my question; however, I am not sure where to go to seek for assistance, please let me know who could hep me on the following: I tried to archive my user talk page yesterday and I only added in the "Archive boxes" script but not the managed to do the 3 months automated archive script (lowercase sigmabot III) as I could not make it work. I just found out today that part of my talk page message (earlier part) was missing and it is not in my archive box. So what should I do and is anyone could help to restoring the message back and set it up for the archive script for me? Kindly point me to the right direction. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Is some content missing at User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archives/ 1? Dbfirs 15:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC
@Dbfirs:, Yes, this is the content. Thank you. Just wonder, how to put them in the archive box, if you know, could you pleas let me know how or if not, can someone help instead? CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on archive scripts, so perhaps someone else can advise you? Dbfirs 20:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Your main problem was that you had the wrong username in the archive config. I corrected it in this edit. That has created User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archive 1. Your previous data was in User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archives/ 1 so I've copied it from there into User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archive 1 which is accessible from your archive box. You should be able to request deletion of User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archives/ 1 by tagging it with {{Db-userreq}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Dbfirs: and @David Biddulph:, Thank you both of you for helping. Appreciate it. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Re reference to ? in article re Eileen MylesEdit

In the article, "they" is used throughout for what was written, what organization was started, where "they" moved to.... Who are "they"? Am I missing something? Shouldn't it be "she" instead of they? Thank you, Lynne O'Brophy73.21.38.196 (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

See MOS:GENDERID. Apparently, the subject prefers the "singular they", and some sources use this pronoun. The usage should be briefly explained in the article. Dbfirs 15:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I've added a note to the top of Eileen Myles explaining this. (I was surprised that I couldn't find a template for the note). --ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I really think that should go as an invisible note within the article using <!-- Comment -->, or on its talk page, ColinFine. It now badly messes up how the page looks and especially how it displays with Hovercards. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I've changed a couple of "theys" in the lead to reduce the confusion of readers unfamiliar with the convention. Dbfirs 21:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the note could be in running text, or a footnote, at the first instance of "they"? Dbfirs 00:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


Someone just created an article. Im not sure if it's notable. Can someone please help to see if it is notable?Thegooduser talk 22:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Not without you telling us which article. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: its called Lynn Zelevansky Thegooduser talk 22:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

That article has no references, and therefore does nothing to establish that its subject is notable. (It's the subject that can be notable, not the article. If the subject is notable and the article establishes this by citing suitable sources, then the article will be accepted for Wikipedia.) Maproom (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
While an article is being built it will be missing things, have empty sections that the creator is planning to fill soon and so on. So it's a good idea to wait awhile and see what develops. Especially if you can see from the edit history that an editor is making changes every few minutes. Of course, if you see that they need help it's fine to offer assistance. Gab4gab (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Tips for my first articleEdit

In the next week or so, I'd like to prepare to write my first article on Wikipedia. I've read a fair amount of information on how to go about this, but what advice would you all give me? MirzaTheGreatest (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@MirzaTheGreatest: Hello. I would suggest using Articles for Creation to draft an article which you can then submit for a review and feedback from another editor; this way you can find out any issues before the article is placed in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards(where people will be more critical). 331dot (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@331dot: Sounds great, thank you! It says it will take around two months to be published, is that right? Thank you so much for your help. I feel I'm picking up Wikipedia pretty quickly but just have some questions. MirzaTheGreatest (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, MirzaTheGreatest. I assume you've read your first article? There's a lot of useful information there. To address your question: in one sense, everything you write, anywhere on Wikipedia, is immediately "published", in the sense that it is visible to anybody - I take it that that was WMF's idea in the recent change from "Save changes" to "Publish changes". But user pages, draft pages etc are not indexed, so they won't tend to be found by ordinary searches: in that sense, only articles in the main space are "published". How long you take developing your draft before submitting it for review is up to you. Once you submit it for review (if you choose to), it may well take a couple of months before somebody reviews it, but that is an estimate: since all editing in Wikipedia is voluntary, it depends on who is available to review it, and who is interested in doing so. And of course, when somebody does review a draft, they may or may not accept it right away. --ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Person is unclear on their own facts - how to handle?Edit

What is the best way to handle a person being unclear about their own facts/stories when writing their article? For example (this is in fact the exact issue in the article I'm thinking of), if a person changes the spelling of their name by changing a letter. They've been asked about it more than once, and have given 2 answers: sometimes they say it was changed because it made their name easier to pronounce, and sometimes they say that they changed it because it looked better with the new spelling. I can find reliable sources (published articles or video of the person themselves saying it) for both of these explanations. Should the sentence be phrased something like "He was originally called (name) but changed the C to a K before releasing his first album. He is unclear on his reasons for this; when asked he has said both that he was tired of his name being mispronounced and that he thought the K looked better on paper (insert cites here)"

Is there a general policy on how to write & cite people being confused, cagey, or outright dishonest about their own lives? I can think of many cases where I've heard a notable person, whether as a deliberate untruth, simply forgetting, or mixing up stories, tell the same story or explanation of their life in two different ways on two different occasions.

Peeteygirl (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Peeteygirl and welcome to the Teahouse.
Overriding anything the subject has to say about their name is the WP:COMMONNAME policy of using the name that reliable sources use for the subject. If the sources are consistent and don't mention any variations, then you don't need to address the issue at all. If they are inconsistent and give an explanation for the inconsistency, that's what we report. If there's no good explanation for the inconsistency, we simply report the alternate names without trying to resolve the inconsistency. It may seem disrepectful, but get give relatively little weight to what the subject has to say about such things, in part because of the reasons you bring up. Readers who are intrigued about the name variations should be able to satisfy their curiousity by following the citations you give, but do not necessarily get to have their curiosity completely slaked by what you write - that sort of issue is seldom noteworthy enough for detailed coverage in an encyclopedia article. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi jmcgnh!
The subject changed the spelling of his name before he achieved any level of fame and has only ever been popularly known by the "k" spelling. All sources, promotional material, his own media etc. refer to him using this spelling. There's no question of what spelling to use in the article. The spelling change is only relevant as a bit of trivia, really, but might from some perspectives be considered significant enough to warrant a brief mention in the biographical section. And that's what it has now - a single line mentioning the spelling change and quoting one of the reasons. There's no inconsistency of the spelling now - only in his explanations of why he changed it. Would it be best then, in this case, to simply state that the spelling was changed, provide a cite, and elaborate no more on the topic beyond those few words? It is quite a trivial thing on the whole since his entire public career has been with the second spelling. It is valuable to briefly mention the old spelling as there are one or two very old (as in, during his childhood old) credits of him with the old spelling, but as you say, including the reasons given for the change may very well be too much anecdotal information for an encyclopedic source such as this.
Editing my own post for extra info: the person in question is Mika, a person in whom I have great interest and am very knowledgeable. His article is very poor and I would like to work on improving it, and this line about the spelling change is one of the things that I noticed needed improvement among the sea of other things wrong with the page.-Peeteygirl (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Peeteygirl, If you look at Mika, you´ll see it´s not an article about a person. Do you mean one of the people under Mika#Nickname_or_stage_name? WP:EXPERT and WP:BLP may be helpful to you, maybe also WP:ADVOCACY (because "great interest in"). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång Ah! My apologies. I did not mean to link to the list of people. I actually knew that page existed and I should have realized that's what would happen. My primary forays into editing in the past have been mostly fixing typos, so I am sometimes not well versed in proper formatting here. I was intending to link to Mika_(singer). I would like to make it very clear that while I am a fan/expert of this person, I have no intention of editing the article for advocacy/promotional/biased purposes. I merely want to use my expertise to improve the quality and factual content of an article which is not very good as it stands. Peeteygirl (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Stage names/Pen names/Aliases?Edit

Hello there. I was wondering what your protocol is for a stage name as opposed to using my real name. I have all my art, music and poetry copyrighted as Aralia Fresia and yet that name was rejected as a Wikipedia page. Thank you. Looking forward to hearing back from you about this. (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Aralia Fresia and welcome to the Teahouse.
I didn't catch your attempt at creating a page, but the name itself does not seem to be a reason for declining a draft. We have policies, starting with WP:NICKNAME, that cover how we deal with the various names or aliases a person may have or use over the course of their life and career. When you created a page about yourself, you are engaged in what we call conflict-of-interest editing, for which there are also recommendations. You should also be aware of the issues of autobiographies on WP. The most common reason for declining these sorts of drafts is that the submission has not adequately demonstrated the notability in the particular sense that WP uses for that word via independent, reliable sources. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The article was deleted and protected against re-creation. Your last edit summary there was Aralia Fresia will not go away until people acknowledge that she is the co-lyricist for Sting's song "I Can't Stop Thinking About You". I would say you need to forget about using Wikipedia to Right Great Wrongs™. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • If you are Aralia Fresia and were the one who initially created the page, you were blocked from editing and by posting here are evading your block; you need to properly request to be unblocked per the instructions on your original user page, User talk:Aralia Fresia; but as has been said, you don't seem interested in building this encyclopedia so you should pursue your grievances elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
<<<< re: To Whom This May Concern: Thank you for replying. You invited me to the "Teahouse" and I just have one more question if you don't mind. Why is it that no one seems to account for the fact that the reason why I can't provide you with the links you are asking for, is because you are either too insensitive to appreciate them, and because I desire to respect Sting's privacy. Only the people who deserve to know these things should be able to figure it out themselves, if they are curious enough. I can't tell you how much time I've spent hunting them down circumstantial evidence compiled with personal testimonies under the surface of this case. I know for a fact that Sting is shy and very emotional about this issue and its very difficult for him to talk about. Not only that, there are personal issues I have surrounding my name. I would appreciate a little bit more sensitivity in what you are actually dealing with. What would you do if it happened to you? If you wrote some lyrics and everyone said, "you are crazy, you didn't write them!" If you can't figure out how to google "Aralia Fresia" and care to find evidence of what I am EXPLICITLY stating is the problem, then maybe the cause is hopeless, but I must assert my right to discuss this matter. Furthermore, because of how rudely I have been treated here, why should I trust you with the evidence I do have? On a talk page, such as this one, its to DISCUSS things, that have been controversial understandably, but I feel there is very little respect in the dialogue I'm receiving. -- Lara Nicole Daskivich (Aralia Fresia) re: 331dot — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I took your suggestion and tried Google, but, for me, it brings up only webpages created by you. We want to treat you fairly, but Wikipedia is not the place for your campaign, and other editors are not being rude when they point out that we have rules that all editors should follow. Best wishes for your recognition campaign, but please don't use Wikipedia for it. We don't use personal testimonies and circumstantial evidence until they are reported in WP:Reliable sources. Dbfirs 13:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I think this essay covers your question well: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Aside from the other sound advice you've received, Ms.Daskivich, I'm afraid you're falling into an all-too-prevalent fallacy seeping into this culture: that the definitions of "rude" or "disrespect" mean disagreement with your position or failure to do what you want people to do. Beyond that, there's a basic premise on Wikipedia that it is up to the editor who wants to include potentially controversial information to provide evidence to support it, not up to those who question or challenge it to demonstrate that it does or does not exist. No one will (or can) prevent you from being offended that you're being asked to proffer verifiable evidence to back up your assertions -- at least as long as you act within Wikipedia's civility bounds -- but without that evidence, nothing further can be done. Ravenswing 00:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Help with speedy deletionEdit

Hello, I did my first article ( a couple of months ago with the help of Dodger67 from Teahouse. Now, someone tagged my article for speedy deletion as a copyright infringement. But in my opinion, there is no copyright infringement. The article is a technical article about a well know welding process. Please can you help me? THX JP1308 (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, JP1308, and welcome to the Teahouse. I checked and got a 0.0% match of the article against the page, so no copy was copied across them. I've removed the speedy deletion tag and asked the person who tagged it to explain if their concern persists. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: I'm not sure how you checked, a quick copy/search shows it's copied from [2] and seems to be a product. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Here is the report, Doug Weller. Can you point out some phrases that are in both because I've obviously missed any. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I might add that, whilst Earwig's Copyvio tool doesn't show an issue to me (nor on the link Finnusertop has just given to suggest why he thinks it isn't a copyvio either), I have found there is some very close paraphrasing in the second paragraph of the article, perhaps not quite to WP:G12 level. Very weirdly, a Google search seems to return a perfect match of text from that 2nd paragrpah to the TIP TIG website, but I cannot then find the text on the page it links to - just the close paraphrasing. The editor might like to address this anyway and read: Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: There is something weird, as a Google search using "site:" also shows the identical text. I can see that here the website says:
"The vibratory effect is created by a linear forward and backward mechanical motion created by the custom wire feeder system and the hotwire current is created by a secondary power source within the TIP TIG welding machine." while the article says:
"The vibration comes from a linear forward and backward motion applied mechanically using a custom wire feeder system. A secondary power, on the other hand, creates the hot wire current."
It's tweaked but still a copyright violation. Some of the original wording was copied from Gas tungsten arc welding and the Tig Tig company website. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
One other question I have as I don't edit this sort of article, it's also a trademark and the name of a company, does that need a mention? Doug Weller talk 13:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Doug Weller and JP1308: I see the user made this declaration: " I work for the AWS and the inventor/owner of this welding process allowed us to use every kind of content/pictures/videos about TIP TIG"- so at a minimum, JP1308, you need to declare your COI on the talk page to avoid breaching our terms of use. You can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:JP1308, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Uw-paid2|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I do agree that the very close paraphrasing is equivalent to copyright infringement and that " Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same things". If the editor (JP1308) has any nouse, they'd change that right away, as it ought to be easy to reword, even with such a technical description. (I now see a fair few notices on the editors talk page to guide them through the issues to address.) I've not looked at the merits of the article as though it were proposed for deletion, but in my view the questionner was justified in coming to the Teahouse to ask why it was flagged for speedy deletion under WP:G12. I'm not convinced the whole article shows "unambiguous copyright infringement", as per that CSD rationale, though it might be sailing pretty close to the wind on that one. Whether it meets WP:N, or should have got through WP:AFC in the first place is another matter entirely, which we don't need to address here. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Thanks. I've left him a note about paid editing and copyright release. I see that the editor who added the tag says that the website has changed since the tag was added, which would explain why Google was still finding the exact text when searched, that's typically what happens, there's a delay. So in fact it probably was copy and paste, not close paraphrase, which agrees with my finding of copy and paste in the first version.Doug Weller talk 15:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your help and your time. I am very sorry if I did something wrong. Yes, I am a welding engineer and yes, I am working for the AWS in the R&D department. Please inform yourself what the AWS stands for and what the AWS is ( And no I DO NOT get any money from TIP TIG or any other welding company. And no I am not related to TIP TIG or any other welding company. My intention when I started to do this article was to write down all the new processes like TIP TIG, CMT, STT, RMD, etc., which came out in the last years and which have a big influence on the whole industry. At the moment I am very overstrained and sad. Please feel free to delete the article that this witch-hunt can find an end.JP1308 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

What is sandbox?Edit

Hi Teahouse,

I am a new Wikipedia user. I don't what is sandbox? Can you tell me what is this? Thank You Sidon quintin (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sidon quintin: - your sandbox is an area in user space (so not a main article) where you can experiment and work on articles. It is better to develop your first article (WP:YFA) in the sandbox before creating the article, as it will allow you to verify notability and include sources. Going straight into mainspace can lead to a speedy deletion, which is not ideal. So, in short, it is a place to experiment. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

New page deleted followingEdit

Ive just tried to create a page ( An artist Bio, requested by the Artist) the page was deleted by user Theroadislong quoting that the article reads like an advertisement?

Can you help? Kind Regards KevinKlara Kazmi (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kevin (Klara Kazmi) and welcome to the Teahouse.
Several things:
  1. If you are Kevin, you should not be logging in as Klara Kazmi. You need to request a name change if you are going to continue to edit.
  2. Your draft is not deleted, it's still visible at Draft:Klara Kazmi.
  3. Theroadislong properly declined your draft. Their comments emphasize that it reads as promotional, but it also fails to establish that the subject is notable and has no proper references for the things it says about the artist. In it's current state, it would be impossible to accept it as an article.
Perhaps you need to read your first article and referencing for beginners to learn what else you need to do to advance your purposes. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Kevin. I'm afraid it looks as if you and your artist friend have an (unfortunately very common) misunderstanding of Wikipedia, in supposing that Wikipedia has anything at all to do with promoting oneself or having an online presence. It does not. Wikipedia is only interested in subjects where somebody (preferably several somebodies) with no connection to the subject has already chosen to publish some in-depth information about the subject (the Wikipedia jargon for that is that the subject is notable. If that is the case, then we can have an article about the subject: it should be based almost entirely on what those independent commentators have published, and the subject (and their associates) will have no control whatever over its content. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Many Thanks, I need to back to friend as well as read through reference for beginners.

Appreciate you taking the time to feedback. Kind regards KevinKlara Kazmi (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

How to fix friend's page?Edit

I added an image to my friend's page ( and the page was flagged as an advertisement. How can I remove this? How should I properly cite the image? This is my first edit so I am very new to this. Thanks for the help! Stevenelleman (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't edit on behalf of friends. See WP:MEAT and WP:COI. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Stevenelleman. That article Atul Singh includes highly promotional language and the tag at the top should stay until the article is completely rewritten to comply with the neutral point of view. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Template problem...Edit


I'm using template:mem, specifically the faculty subtemplate, but there is a problem with the template not displaying correct information (see my sandbox work here). I don't know how to edit templates, and I'm not comfortable experimenting with it. Someone posted on Template talk:Mem about the problem 2 years ago, but it's still not answered. Help... Jmnbqb (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jmnbqb and welcome to the Teahouse.
Thanks for bringing attention to this problem. There was a problem with the way the most recent change was made to the template (quite a while ago) and I've now fixed it. Because it's a template, you may have to purge your cache or wait a while for the fix to show up. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks!! Jmnbqb (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Pages regarding the same topicsEdit

wondering if it is possible to have one page with combined information from both pages Astarte and Astaroth

I have posted extensive links in both articles' talk pages to show the link between the two, the name Astaroth is a mix of the name Astarte (a Goddess) and the Hebrew word for "shame" and was used in regards to the GODDESS before it was mentioned in the Book of Abramelin in 1458 as a MALE Demon.

Perhaps the Goetic demon's more current information could all go into a category along with the rest of the long History of the Goddess?

Any suggestions??? SnowWhite21 (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello SnowWhite21 and welcome to the Teahouse.
Given the state of the Astaroth page, other editors might entertain the idea of redirecting it to a subsection of the Astarte page where the common identity aspects could be detailed. That redirect discussion would begin on the talk page Talk:Astaroth. What you've currently posted there more resembles original research and synthesis than a proposal for a change to the encyclopedic content of the pages. You may want to tone down the fervor with which you are presenting these ideas. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
My knee-jerk reaction is "no". While The names may be related and this should be made clear in the articles per available reliable sources that discuss this, the two subjects are distinct enough to merit their own articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
One is an ancient Mesopotamian pagan goddess, the other is a figure from medieval Judeo-Christian demonology that is referred to using masculine pronouns. Merging the two makes about as much sense having God redirect to Odin, having Theology redirect to Zeus, or merging Ulysses and Ulysses. Yahweh and God in Judaism are separate articles, even though they're more closely related with a clearer line of transmission. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Can Someone assist Me create a page for an Established organisationEdit

Good day Everyone, Please can someone help me create a Page for the Extreme Fighting Championship...i have all the info... when i try it gets spammed as advertising... (Mrkeego (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mrkeego: That article has been deleted plenty of times and via several deletion discussions under several titles. I've protected the current one against recreation and will shortly protect the other titles as well. Given the extensive history of problems, it would be necessary to create the article as a draft and have it approved by articles for creation before it could be placed in mainspace. Additionally, as I remind everyone who has a G11 deletion, if you are being paid or compensated to edit about the subject, including if you're asked or expected to do so as part of employment, you're required to disclose that as outlined here before editing further on it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thank you for your reply...please can i email you the info and can you assist...i am not getting paid to publish, i'm merely just a fan...and would like the organisation in south africa to be apart of wikipedia.. (Mrkeego (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
No, please do not email me. I already told you what the next steps ought to be. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind Mrkeego that not every established organization merits an article here. An organization must have in depth coverage in independent reliable sources that show how it meets WP:ORG, the notability guidelines for organizations. Please review those links to learn more. You may also wish to read Your First Article. Once you have done that, and if you think you can write a proper article, you should proceed as Seraphimblade suggests. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Bluntly, what part of "no" don't you understand? When an article has been deleted this many times at this many titles, it's a lost cause. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft Page ReviewEdit

Hi there. I hope you might be able to help me by reviewing the article on my draft page (Draft_talk:Asian_Institute_of_Finance) and in particular to look at the references and sourcing where I have had some issues previously. Looking forward to your comments! Thank you Sandrapriya (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Sandrapriya. While we don't do formal reviews of drafts here (that's what the Articles for Creation process is for), I can tell you after a brief look at the article that its references do not seem to include the sort of independent, in-depth coverage that are needed to establish notability (in the particular WP sense). Too much reliance on the organization or its parent and on press releases and ordinary business announcements leads to an article that probably won't be accepted. It certainly seems like you should be able to find proper references for this institution, but the article will need to be written less like an entry in a business directory. Hope this helps. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

When and how do I list an editor with COI on an article?Edit

Hi! I'm here again after a helpful response the last time round. My question is, do I have to gain consensus at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard before I can use the COI tag on the article's talk page? The article is Singapore Sports School and the school's Strategics Communications Team seem to be editing under Sspstratcomms, and is determined to add primary-sourced content on its school facilities.

I don't want to come across as an arsehole, but there's really been so much promo content lifted from press releases in Singapore-related articles. Is there any Wikiproject I can join to sort of learn how to determine which sort of edits count as COI and puffery? Is there any peer review group to check my bias? Thank you in advance! NoCringe (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, any wisdom on this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • This one is a slam-dunk. The user should be blocked as an apparent role account, and the people who use it warned not to edit the article directly. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


Can we use YouTube links for references ?? Noname479 (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Noname479. That depends on the publisher of the content. Someone uploading a video that they made at home isn't going to be a reliable source. A video produced by a news organisation such as CNN or the BBC is likely to be considered reliable in the same way that the rest of their content is, but please note that we can't link to copyright violations, so these videos can only be used if they have been uploaded by the official YouTube account of the organisation concerned. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Would an article on the Paul Molé Barber Shop (oldest barber shop in New York City) be suitable as a Wikipedia article?Edit

I would like to write a Wikipedia article on the Paul Molé Barber Shop, the oldest barber shop in New York City, 104 years old. I find it to be interesting and historical, having been used by General Patton and John Steinbeck, etc and is still an active institution of the city. It is referenced and thoroughly described in news sources and publications over the last 100 years, and in TV features, etc. It seems to meet the guidelines of Wikipedia for noteworthiness, having been in existence for over 100 years and having a historic presence, and having been featured by quality publications as third-party references such as New York Magazine, The New Yorker, Channel 11, etc. I wanted to ask if this is likely to be approved as an article given that preliminary information, since it is noteworthy, but it is a business. My best analogy would be the existing Wikipedia page on the Macy's Department Store at Herald Square. Thank you very much.PaulDaniel777 (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi PaulDaniel777 and welcome to the Teahouse. You are confusing noteworthyness with the special meaning of WP:Notability in Wikipedia. The topic may well be notable in the Wikipedia sense but only if it has been written about in independent WP:Reliable sources. You need to find these first (as you imply above that you have already done), then summarise what they say, providing references for each statemant. See WP:Referencing for beginners on how to cite the sources. You might like to create a draft at Draft:Paul Molé Barber Shop where your text can be checked and reviewed before publication. Dbfirs 10:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks.PaulDaniel777 (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
You might also like to read WP:Your first article. Dbfirs 14:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


Can anyone guide me to the Draft:Sanjay Kukreja, can it published now or what the changes I need to make on that ??? Noname479 (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, no. It is not written in a neutral tone and lacks sources to establish the importance of the subject. I am fairly confident that was the answer last time you asked. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
As what Guy, said. Also, you might need a source to confirm that "The event with Shaan was one of the greatest events in India.". Chetsford (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable sources notifiationEdit

Where do i find the coding for notification that the sources in an article are not suitable and that references to other article is not sufficient for citations?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You may find something useful at Category:Citation and verifiability maintenance templates. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
See also the index at Wikipedia:Template messages. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

My India VS Pakistan articleEdit

I made a india vs pak cricket article and it got declined so what can I do to make sure it wont get declined?Mystery Bros (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mystery Bros. We already have an article about that subject at India–Pakistan cricket rivalry, so while sourced, neutral additions to that are welcome, a new article on the same topic won't be accepted. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, if you continue to vandalise the existing article you will be blocked from editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

changing my usernameEdit

How do I change my username? Is there any reason not to use my name? When I set up my username, I did not realize it would be available for all to see. I'd rather use my actual name for community purposes rather than something that is generally confidential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmccullo63 (talkcontribs) 16:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Gmccullo63. Since you've only made three edits so far, the easiest thing to do would simply be to abandon the current account, and register a new account with the name you would prefer instead. GMGtalk 16:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

writing an article and reference or citationEdit

sir i want to write a history of school but that particular school history has been not published in national media or similar but school magazines have published the school history what i want to ask is how can i make reference or citation please clarify me thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:4000:BBFD:1F71:9174:A125:5D7D:CF6E (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you probably can't. Wikipedia articles must be based on reliably published information, and most of the information in an article must come from sources independent of the subject. School magazines might be usable for some information, but they will be primary sources, so what kind of information can be cited to them is limited. The bulk of the information in the article must come from independent reliable sources: if these do not exist, then no article is possible, I'm afraid. Please see Identifying reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Learning Biography template-questionsEdit

In developing a biography I'm trying to use the {{biography}}template on my userpage so while I'm developing the article (many hours of work), it won't be deleted--then supposedly there is a way to move the content to a "real" page once everything is well developed. The sample biography appears correctly when I insert the template however, I cannot edit the sections in place. It appears I have to copy paste each section into the editing area and then reformat each section. This seems exceptionally inefficient and defeats the purpose of a template.

What am I missing? Am I expecting too much?

In a perfect world, I would like to copy paste a real-life previously published author biography into my namespace to replace all the content for the new biography I'm creating because some previously published articles already contain all the headings/format needed. However, I think I read someplace that copying existing content is not advised.

Any advice is much appreciated. Thank you!

ElephantEar (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for including the biography template in my original question, I shouldn't have included the brackets apparently and now I'm not able to edit the question to clean that up.
I've removed the transclusion of the template for you. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey ElephantEar. You can normally copy and paste to some extent within Wikipeidia so long as you provide attribution. You can often simply provide this in an edit summary. So you could leave an edit summary like copying content from [[ARTICLE NAME]] in order to use formatting for development of a new draft, see the page history there for full attribution and no one should really take much of an issue with it. When you're done, you can add {{AFC submission}} to the top of the draft to submit to our Articles for Creation Project, where it can be reviewed by an experienced editor who can offer feedback prior to publishing.
You may also want to consider reading through our tutorial on writing your first article or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure, both of which can help explain a lot about how Wikipedia works. If you have more specific questions, this is exactly the right place to ask, and someone will usually reply shortly. GMGtalk 18:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
One further suggestion, ElephantEar, there absolutely nothing to stop you copying a published biography onto a Word processor and working on it offline, and then pasting your version back into your draft article. Just be careful to avoid close paraphrasing, which is akin to copyright violation. So always use your own form of words. See WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
... and, for the benefit of any other new editors reading this page, the correct place to experiment is within an editor's own sandbox (as User:ElephantEar is already doing), not on a main userpage. Dbfirs 23:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Focusing on specific demographicEdit

Is turning a demographics list into a statement more relevant to the school being discussed in an article a violation of NPOV, or can it be seen as better expressing the nature of the school? I have in mind this revert. Jzsj (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of the Teahouse is not to settle content disputes. If you cannot work it out on the article's talk page, the suggested courses of action can be found at WP:DR. John from Idegon (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia page for artist Ron BairdEdit

I created this account to make an article for artist Ron Baird, a notable Canadian Sculptor. I am disclosing now that I am related to Ron Baird and understand the possible conflict of interest. A draft has been made in word already (which I can link if necessary), I am looking for advice on how to move forward with this project, and any steps I should take before I publish the first draft of the article (other than reading guidelines).

Thank you, Artscanada (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Usually, when one has a close connection to the subject it si considered best to use the articles for creation process, which will allow uninvolved users to evaluate whether or not the article is suitable before it is published in article space. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Your first article which details how to get started in article writing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Artscanada. I agree with Beeblebrox, especially that you should use the Articles for Creation process. You should also read and study our policy requiring the neutral point of view in articles. A draft written in that style will have a much greater chance of acceptance, especially if the referencing is solid. Poorly referenced drafts are in trouble. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

How do I make a category a subcategory of another category?Edit

I want to make [Category:Polynesian cuisine] a subcategory of [Category:Oceanian cuisine] The Verified Cactus 100% 22:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

If I’m not mistaken, you simply add it to the parent category the same way you would an article. You may want to consider using WP:HOTCAT as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Wow, that's a lot easier than I thought it'd be. Thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 22:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

How do I contact an editor of a page that I created?Edit

I created a Wiki page for my grandfather, Cliff Padgett, a pioneering power boat builder from the early & mid 20th century. Now, several people are trying to delete the page because it lacks references. I have tons of stuff in my files, but Google searches turn up very few items. I just want to supply at least a little more info to the editors so they don't delete my grandfather's page, and I really don't know how to edit. I'm tech challenged and surprised I was able to create the page in the first place. QuincyBoatManQuincyBoatMan (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

To answer your question, you can talk to them either by editing Talk:Cliff Padgett or by participating in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Padgett.
Also, sources do not have to be online. It is of course helpful if they are, but it is not required. If you have newspaper or magazine articles or other reliable sources you can add them to the article. WP:CITE explains how to do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
But the material does have to have been published, QuincyBoatMan, so that any reader can in principle check the references (e.g. by ordering them through a library). It's not clear from your wording whether the items in your files are published or not: If they are private memoirs or correspondence, then they cannot be used as references, I'm afrid. --ColinFine (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, QuincyBoatMan. I did take a quick look at that article before seeing your question here as I noticed it had been put up for deletion by an editor who's recent judgement and performance in nominating content for deletion is currently under scrutiny by the Wikipedia community. Whilst I did struggle to quickly find online sources to support retention, I did think it might not merit deletion either. Because of the period in which Padgett was building and racing boats, it is not necessarily going to yield much online content. However, if you've got newspaper clippings of his accomplishments and especially his world record, and can cite those, as suggested above, I think it will help considerably. As has been said, these things must have been published. Letters and personal notes and diaries etc. are irrelevant here.
If you cannot cite these because of your uncertainty on how to edit and add references, there is an alternative. I see you've already put comments on the article talk page, saying there's a 1000 word published biography of him. If, using your own words, you were to rewrite and rephrase the key content from that biography (noting that close paraphrasing is not acceptable), you could put that up on the Talk page, and then you could simply state the publication, date, author, page numbers etc that it's derived from, and another editor could insert that on your behalf if they wanted to. The key thing we rely on is "in depth" coverage in independent reliable sources, not just passing mentions. How signifant the world record is, or his other awards are, I have no idea, but this is the kind of thing that is important in showing that a person meets our standards of notabilty. It sounds likew that task is up to you. Bear in mind that there are many, many people who have done amazing things in their local area that are just never going to meet the notabilty standards of a world-wide encyclopaedia. That doesn't in any way lessen the signficance of what they have achieved or have contributed to the world. Hoping this helps, and regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Beetlebox and Nick Moyes - thanks so much. I really appreciate your taking the time to give me advice. I am compiling a number of references/sources that document Cliff Padgett's history. I have lots of photos and newspaper clippings. I'm certain that the historical museum can provide much additional documentation, since many of Padgett's memorabilia reside there. His trophies reside in the Quincy Boat Club. What kind of evidence would be acceptable re the trophies? I'm working on other critical deadlines, so I hope I can get enough references in a timely fashion before someone deletes the page.
QuincyBoatManQuincyBoatMan (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit suggestionsEdit

I noticed that a page (coffee long black) has the incorrect information regarding the steps on how to much this drink. Can I suggest an edit for Wikipedia? (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You can do more than that, you can go ahead and make the edit yourself! Be sure to verify your changes with reliable sources. If you aren’t comfortable witht hat you may suggest the edit on the talk page of that article. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Even better, you can find some reliable sources which discuss long black: without them, the article is totally useless. Also, please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. If there is nothing more to say about this drink than how to make it, then it almost certainly does not merit a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


Can i add a humor section on my userpage? Thegooduser talk 02:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: Yes, if it is Wikipedia related humor. See WP:UP for user page Dos and Don'ts. RudolfRed (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Can it be humor of what i do outside of Wikipedia?Thegooduser talk 02:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


Can i put humor on my userpage of what i do outside of wikipedia?Thegooduser talk 02:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: A small amount is probably OK. Read the guidance at the link I provided in your previous question. RudolfRed (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

No option to edit a pageEdit

Hi guys, I'm new at this and just finding my feet. I am looking to edit a small piece of wording on this page -

But I cannot find any options to edit...Am I doing something wrong or is this page protected for some reason?


DMoniker (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@DMoniker: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, the page is protected from editing by all users due to vandalism, although users that are autoconfirmed can edit it(if your account is 4 days old and has at least 10 edits). This is indicated by the padlock in the upper right corner. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to Wikipedia. Yes, the little padlock in the top right-hand corner of the page links to Wikipedia:Protection policy#semi, which tells you how to request an edit. The log explains why it is semi-protected. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


HOW DO YOU SUBMIT PICTURES?MASTUHOSCG8845 (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@MASTUHOSCG8845: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please don't "yell"; using all caps is generally considered yelling and could be seen as rude on most websites. Regarding your question, instructions on submitting images can be found at WP:UPIMAGE. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Why my artilce was not aprovedEdit

I wrote an article about my patent I did it exactly same way ( wording) another patent (different patent) article that was approved I gave all the facts and even included my patent form from the Untied States Patent Office Randy50.101.142.41 (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The fact Wikipedia:Other stuff exists does not always imply your stuff also reaches a Wikipedia:Notability threshold. --CiaPan (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You don't link to the draft you created and it is not under the edit history of your IP address, so I presume you are logged out; please log back into your username or link to the draft. Without seeing it, and only based on what you say, your draft was likely declined because it did not indicate with independent reliable sources how whatever it is you got patented is notable as Wikipedia defines it. Wikipedia has no interest in what an article subject wishes to say about itself- or in this case, what the creator of something wishes to say about it. Wikipedia is only interested in what third parties write about a subject. You have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest; please read about this at WP:COI and make the appropriate declarations. It is usually difficult for people with a COI to edit about their area of expertise objectively; you will need to write your draft based only on what independent sources state about it. This does not include the US Patent Office(which only confirms that the item was patented, not that it is notable) or anything source related to you. Not every patented thing merits a Wikipedia article.
Again, we can give you better help if you link to the draft in question. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Which warning message?Edit

For the Wikipedia page of Angelsberg, I would like to add a warning as the "History" doesn't document its actual past and origin and all (so it is not history according to me). What do I do?— Preceding unsigned comment added by RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talkcontribs)

@RedBulbBlueBlood9911: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you wish to challenge the content you speak of, you could first post on the article talk page to explain your concerns(click "Talk" at the top of the article, then edit the following page normally). Personally I think the event you speak of would probably be more appropriate to put in the article about the road itself, if it warrants mentioning at all. If you want to be bold, you can remove the content yourself, but I would still comment on the article talk page to give your reasoning. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

accidentally submitted for review!Edit

I apologize, but it seems I've submitted for review before I intended to do so. I pasted subst:submit with the brackets because I thought I was getting close, but when I did, it immediately submitted my article. My prior Wiki article did not do that. Instead, that got me a blue button to use when I was ready to submit. I just wanted to figure out how to change the working title to the correct one. Could someone pull back my article from review and point me in the right direction to learn how to change the title? Many thanks! Butch UnlikelySailor (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, UnlikelySailor. Removing the {{AFC submission}} template, as you did, is sufficient to remove the article from the review queue. What you might have wanted to do is {{subst:AFC draft}} instead of {{subst:submit}}. I've now done that for you, so you have a submit button when you are ready.
Don't worry overmuch about the title of the draft page. It's the job of the reviewer who accepts a draft to assign the correct title. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 16:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Christopher Jon Luke Dowgin Page DeletedEdit

Hello Teahouse, I just noticed a page I had created was deleted. I do understand that a certain structure needs to be followed, but is there in the guidelines a rule about not writing like "a goat set loose on a keyboard?"

The last complaint and the person who might of erased it had this to say with another of the editing space: "What on earth is all that about? is it me, or is it the ramblings of a nutter? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 08:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Definately a wall. The only way I could type that much is if my goat were to climb over my keyboard! Appears to be written by one person. Needs some c/e. Jim1138 (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
You have a goat?-Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 09:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog: Yours? No goat, a few thousand hummingbirds however. Cheers! Jim1138 (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

cited from page:

Is this type of editing that happens at Wikipedia. This seems more like the work of an 16 year old kid hiding in his parents basement aspiring to be a troll.

Is there a way to get a page undeleted? I spent a lot of hours on this page, it was not perfect. I just have not had enough time to work on it again. Plus when there are just happy go lucky editors who just erase things on a whim, why bother? Salem North Man (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey I want to know about the biographiesEdit

Hey, I've created a biography a few months back which has been deleted several times though I provided enough references (This is what I think) also there were no promotion or advertisement involved but still it deleted or nominated for speedy deletion. Can you please explain what went wrong in that? In past I've rarely created wikis only a few so not have much experience with biographies especially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scheheryar (talkcontribs) 16:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This would appear to be rather a moot point as I see your account has just been blocked for WP:sockpuppetry, and the person (that at least one of your accounts appears to have been editing) has been created and deleted multiple times on the grounds of failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. These require 'in-depth' coverage, not passing mentions in newspapers etc. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Current business page is incorrect and not up to date - can i just correct the information?Edit

I work for a company that has a wiki page that is very out of date Albion Ventures including basic stuff like the name of the company - is it ok for me to just edit the page with the correct information? I have been told that it is not possible to make your own corrections. Is it advisable to create a new page with the full correct information? (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Creating a new rival version of the page definitely won't work. The recommended method is to list your proposed changes on the article's talk page, preferably with references – like "the company chairman is no longer Bill Smith, it is Betty James, see <link to news report>". You could just edit the article directly, if you're sure you'll be doing nothing promotional or controversial. Maproom (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
If you work for the company, please read about conflict of interest and about paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
If this is about Albion Ventures, the article is a real mess. It's not clear what it's meant to be about – Albion Ventures, Albion Capital Group LLP, or "the wider Albion Group". It uses unacceptably promotional language. It uses a non-standard, and unacceptable, style of citation. Most of its sources no longer exist, and those that do exist are about statements made by employees of the company, and so not independent. As it stands, the article is a strong candidate for deletion. Maproom (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
See? Now you woke up the bear! David notMD (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

When I want to puplish my changes to a page the error http 404 shows up.Edit

I wanted to shorten the references in an article I wrote and add a list with the literature. Now every time I want to publish the changes the error pops up. Please help me JANH.K. (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You don't appear to have made any edits prior to this question. What account were you using, and to what article are you referring? --David Biddulph (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Do My References Pass Muster?Edit

I just resubmitted my draft, Draft:Gilson (company), after removing what I think were all of the biased sources that caused it to be rejected in the first place. I'm not practiced enough to get a feel for what's an appropriate source or not. Do all of my sources now hit the mark?

Thank you, Cglife.bmarcus (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Cglife.bmarcus, the problem, now anyway, is not with bias but with establishing that the subject is notable. You will need several references to reliable independent sources with significant discussion of the subject. You have cited six sources, but
  1. is to a directory entry, presumably based on content submitted by the company and so not independent.
  2. is to an obituary of the company's founder, with only a brief mention of the company itself.
  3. is to another copy of the same obituary.
  4. is to a patent in the name of the company's founder, and so not independent.
  5. is to an interview with the company's founder, and so not independent.
  6. is like 4.
They may be appropriate sources for some purposes. But none of them helps to establish Gilson, Inc. as notable. Maproom (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Advice on "notability" of potential new pageEdit

I would like to write a Wikipedia page for Emergent Art Space,a international not-for-profit arts organization based in San Francisco, CA. EAS provides opportunities for young artists (ages 18-30) from around the world to exhibit their work, exchange ideas and develop cross-cultural understanding through the visual arts.

I could not find any other entries matching this description. Now I'm trying to figure out if it is considered "notable" . The Wikipedia instructions recommended I go to TeaHouse for information. Please advise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8372:5ca0:e842:a0ab:5da4:dfc (talk)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The notability guidelines for organizations can be found at WP:ORG. In short, however, the organization will need to have had in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. In other words, Wikipedia is interested in what sources not associated with or written by this organization have to say about it. Press releases, interviews, and the organization's website would not be acceptable as sources. The article must do more than merely tell about the organization. You may wish to read Your First Article to learn what is being looked for. Please understand that successfully writing a Wikipedia article is actually one of the hardest things to do here. While it is good that this organization does good work, merely doing good work is not enough. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)