Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 427

Archive 420

←

Archive 425

Archive 426

Archive 427

Archive 428

Archive 429

Archive 430

How do I create page for a product in general without getting it deleted for promoting or advertising?

Hi there, i'm a newbie here.

I have been deleted for uploading about an energy drink - Drive M7. I love the drink. I love their activities in motorsports. I see their page is not yet done by anyone. I want to do something like red bull page does but for this relatively new drinks.

How do I create a page about them and their activities without sounding like a promotion and in the end getting deleted? Hope for some help here guys/gals. Thanks. Royazren (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Royazren, and welcome to Wikipedia. First, the drink has to be well known enough to be in an encyclopedia. That means that a number of journalists and book/magazine authors have to have written extensively about it. Otherwise there should be not article. Secondly, to make sure that it doesn't sound like advertising, the focus of the article should not be opinion about the drink, but facts - who makes it, when it was first available, what are the ingredients, where is it manufactured and distributed, etc.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Great. I'll keep that in mind. Thank you for the tips!Royazren (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

One way of looking at this, Royazren, is to realise that Wikipedia isn't interested, hardly at all, in what the company has to say about the product; or what its employees, agents, advertisers, or distributors say about it. Wikipedia is only interested in what people unconnected with the company have said about it - and published in reliable places such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers. An article on the product should be based nearly 100% on these sources (not plagiarised, of course: summarised and referenced, sometimes explicitly quoted in short quotes). The company's own publications should be referenced only for uncontroversial factual data like places and dates, and it is very rare that it would be appropriate to quote anything from the company's own publications.

If there is enough independent published material to base an article on, then there can be an article; if there isn't then there cannot be an article at present: that's what the notability criteria mean. --ColinFine (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Notability

Hello! I recently submitted an article for creation for a company I have COI with. It was rejected based on notability and I read Wikipedia's notability guidelines but I'm new to Wikipedia so I wanted to confirm I'm doing this properly. Do I just need to find more online sources of articles about the company? Here's the link to the article draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Crescent_Communities. I would love to get another experienced editor's thoughts on this. Thanks so much for your help! (Rebelighthart (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Replied to the wrong discussion. sorry about that, ignore my response Zyc1174 (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

As you have a conflict of interest, it would be better if you did not work on the article at all. As for the draft itself, it already has plenty of references (too many, in my opinion) showing that the company exists. Adding more of those won't help. But none of the ones I checked show that it is notable. To establish notability, you need sources that actually discuss the subject, rather than just mentioning it as the owner of some development. It seems you have worked hard on the draft, looking for such sources, but failed to find any. This makes me believe that the company just isn't notable. Maproom (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Advice on factual tone

I am new to Wikipedia so being bold but still struggling! I created a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Brain and have been editing it to address concerns raised by various editors (including renaming the page) although its still set for deletion. The main points from some editors appear to be its essay like opinion style. I have made a lot of changes, but would really appreciate any advice/help on what else I can do. Thankyou PHCleverley (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The article consists of four unreadable sentences. I have no idea what they are trying to convey. But one thing I am sure of: they include no mention of the subject of the article. Maproom (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Kudanthai sister Dr. Smt. K. Manjula/sandbox/KUDANTHAI SISTER DR. SMT. K. MANJULA

I reviewed User:Kudanthai sister Dr. Smt. K. Manjula/sandbox/KUDANTHAI SISTER DR. SMT. K. MANJULA and declined it as an inadequately sourced autobiography whose title has been salted. Its originator then posted a request for assistance to my talk page. User:Timtrent has since declined it again and has tagged it for speedy deletion. Can anyone give advice to the originator other than that this is not what Wikipedia is for? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Certainly. The draft is a large piece of promotionally laid out advertisement for the author. It is using Wikipedia for self puffery and to seek to gain reputation from it. It devalues the person written about and adds no value to Wikipedia. This iteration is best deleted. That does not preclude the author from trying again, ideally after reading WP:YFA. The current iteration has too many issues with content and style to be worth retaining, and any references that exist are insufficient to come close to verifying any notability.

So the advice to the author is to learn their trade. If they are here, as I hope they are, to build an encyclopaedia rather than to promote themselves they should steer well clear of this autobiography. Fiddle Faddle 17:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Can I write a page about the company I work on?

I already read your terms of creation of pages (or something like that) and I see companies on it like McDonalds and Apple. Our company doesn't even compare to that. We have information about us, of course, and a website and a place to work. We have a Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn page and we are thinking of making a Wikipedia article. There would be no advertizing. There's a page in Wikipedia about our partner institute and we want to make one like it.

We are Portuguese but our webpage is translated. It's www.ciscal.eu

What do you think?

Thank you for your help. Happy holidays!

CiSCAL

2001:690:2008:E1F5:E917:FA1B:F95F:81CE (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia is not a directory. Your company must satisfy corporate notability guidelines in order to be listed. Also, read the conflict of interest policy. As an employee, you have a conflict of interest and are not neutral, and Wikipedia has a strict policy of neutral point of view. Also, content from copyrighted web pages may not be copied to Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I just want to create and article on The Neo- Fourth Dimension Concept A new perspective

This work was solely prepared by me and the same has been published in amazon in 2014.

is it possible to have someone to edit the same if I could provide the soft copy of the work in word file to get it published here.? because I want this available to the public for free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo christi eapen (talk • contribs) 17:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Geo christi eapen
A google search for your book shows just 10 results, of which 2 are irrelevant, and 2 (here and here) are examples of where you have tried to have a Wikipedia article before, but it has been rejected.
I don't see any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which is what is required. Unless, and until, your book has received coverage in reliable independent sources, it is unsuitable for a Wikipedia article - we do not publish original research. - Arjayay (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue will be references. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make any putative draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

Please read WP:YFA, which will be a great start. Fiddle Faddle 17:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well. Thank you so much for your valuable information Mr. Arjayay.

Geo christi eapen (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I want to create a page about a British actor thats inpiring (page is Christopher Lee Power )

My name is Lee and I work for a film company thats filming this actors life story and I am in the process of creating a page for the British actor and writer Christopher Lee Power but its had a tag put on saying its promoting him. is there a way of writing it that will be excepted please. Leepbreaking (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest that you work on this as Draft:Christopher Lee Power. I am about to take a unilateral decision to move it there for you. I will place a comment on it to guide your hand. Fiddle Faddle 18:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Help with guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule

Hi...Would like to know how one can ensure that an article sticks to this rule. Can I get an example? Vindiesel 2015 (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vindiesel 2015. WP:Golden rule is a brief clearly written summary of our notability guidelines. You can click on various links to get in-depth explanations. Your own Draft:TVSi is an example of a draft article that does not meet our minimum requirements at this time. You can look at a few Good articles to see examples of articles that are actually good. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Vindiesel, I think the problem with your draft is that it's citing only one source. Is Business Wire India the only publication (magazine, newspaper, book, credible internet site that is not affiliated with TVSi) that has written about the company? If it's the only one, then the company is not notable. If TVSi has been covered in more sources, please add them to the draft so that we can see. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 06:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Vindiesel 2015, please note that Business Wire is a group of websites that simply reprints corporate press releases. Accordingly, it is not an independent source and material published there does not help establish the notability of a company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Spherexx, LLC

I reviewed Draft:Spherexx, LLC and declined it as not meeting corporate notability guidelines. I noted a blatant conflict of interest because the author of the draft, User:BeccAWilson, is also the owner of the company. The author then posted to my talk page: "Hello Robert, thanks for your help. We will continue to forge on. I am not the owner and CEO of Spherexx, although I see why you would assume that. I am an employee. We set up the User name as such for housekeeping purposes. I do wish to comment on the removal of our edit to Yield Management. I obviously failed to cite properly in the body of the article and I will try again. As written, the Yield Management in the context of Multi-family is simply untrue. "Chief among the new vendors is Property Solutions...." is not cited--but it is still printed there and no one has nuked it or cited it. The statement is simply not true. We just want to be listed among the software providers for yield management. We are not asking to be "chief." Appreciate your input."

I will not try to discuss my specific edits, because the real issue seems to be conflict of interest and a promotional article. Her comments seem to me to miss the primary point on conflict because either a CEO or an employee has a conflict of interest, but they seem to establish another issue, which is that the username appears to be a shared promotional username. Do other editors agree that the username is being improperly used? (I was assuming good faith that BeccAWilson really was BeccAWilson. If she isn’t a she but a they, that is different.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Please warn them, one account, one editor and ask them to confirm that one one editor is using the account. We assume good faith if they say so. We can tag anything they write on their employer with {{Connected contributor}} potentially citing the diff of their posting on your talk page in the other links parameter, and you may want to offer them {{uw-paid1}} to read to ensure they understand the rules here. But we ought to welcome them in and seek to convert them to become a hobbyist general editor. Fiddle Faddle 17:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that if BeccAWilson is not the founder of the company, then this is a misleading and therefore inappropriate user name that must be changed. User who are not a certain real person cannot use an account name that leads people to think they are.

One of the reasons that Articles for Creation exists is to allow an editor with a declared COI to draft a possible article. Accordingly, the simple presence of a COI should not itself be a reason for declining a draft. In this case, the draft has multiple other problems and is far from ready for the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It is true that one of the reasons for Articles for Creation is to allow editors with declared COI to draft an article, so that the COI is not in itself a reason for declining the draft. However, the peacock language that is typical of drafts by COI editors is a reason why one reviewer may choose to decline the draft as it is, and another reviewer may choose to clean up the draft. Normally reviewers only choose to clean up a peacock draft if there is adequate evidence of notability. Some reviewers are willing to spend more time improving drafts that need improvement than some other reviewers. Also, in many cases, the editor who has the COI has not declared the COI, but it stands out to the reviewer. In this case the COI was not declared, but what was obvious to a reviewer was that the user name who submitted the draft was the name of the CEO of the company. (The fact that it wasn't really the CEO is a separate problem.) I have posted to User:BeccAWilson that only Becca Wilson should use that account, since she is a real living person, and that other employees should create their own accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft : How to publish this Page?

How to publish this page about a search engine website https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Elliot!_Search

ElliotSearch (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

On some site which, unlike Wikipedia, allows people to post advertisements. Facebook, for instance. Maproom (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

We only have articles about notable organizations which meet our notability requirements and have received significant coverage in Independent, Reliable, Sources - with an Alexa ranking of 3,424,774 - I suspect you will find such coverage hard to find - Arjayay (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

A lot of people come to Wikipedia wanting articles on their Great New Thing. As an encyclopedia, we only allow articles on stuff that has a proven record that "the world" already decided it is a noteworthy topic. Our articles are summaries of what other people have already written about it. What you need would be to show that newspapers, magazines, books, or other reliable independent media have already written meaningful coverage of it. Then we summarize that coverage. Arjayay's comment above provides links to in-depth explanations of Notability, Independent, Reliable Sources. Alsee (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Message from 216.16.135.194

I was not aware that everyone used their personal names as usernames on Wikipedia--there was no mention of a requirement for using one's personal name as a username, was there? Nor is the "BeccAWilson" username a shared promotional username. This is yet another assumption. As an employee, I am apparently guilty of a "conflict of interest" -- does that preclude me writing a legitimate article about the company I work for?

Everything that I wrote on the sandbox article draft for your review is verifiable, if not yet in in your prescribed format. It is styled like many articles on Wikipedia I have reviewed.

What is not verifiable is the information I referred to in the Yield Management article. Herein remains my question. 216.16.135.194 (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

If you have an account, please log in to it. We have no trace of what you are talking about and the edit I am replying to is the sole edit logged against this IP address. Fiddle Faddle 18:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no requirement to use your real name, 216.16.135.194. I am not actually called Cordless. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• The text appears to refer to user:BeccAWilson. Becca Wilson is listed as founder of Speherexx LLC. Based on comments on another user's talk page, this account appears to have been created for use by multiple employees. Wikipedia rules are that accounts must belong to an individual person. Someone who happens to be an employee can make an individual account, not to be shared, and not transferred to someone else if that person leaves the company.

Someone with a conflict of interest (an employee) can go through Article For Creation review, as you are doing. However looking over Draft:Spherexx,_LLC, browsing every Google News hit for Spherexx, and an additional 260 Google hits, I think you're going to have a really hard time getting an article approved at this time. Wikipedia is not a business directory or advertising platform. We have encyclopedia articles on topics that "the world" is already writing about. "Notability" means need to show that reporters or other Reliable Source authors are already writing about Spherexx, then we summarize that coverage. That summary may be supplemented with facts drawn from the company website, but the independent coverage needs to be there first. Alsee (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Help in creating an entry for Michele Wucker; clarifying "minimum citation requirements"

Link: Draft:Michele Wucker

Hi:

The article I created about author and policy expert Michele Wucker was rejected due to not meeting minimum citation requirements. No issues here - I have no problem redoing it and inserting proper citations. I'm just a bit unclear as to the specifics of "minimum citation requirements" as they apply to specific references. (Example: If I'm citing a book, is a link to a Worldcat record acceptable; for an article, a link to the publication in which it appeared, even if the article may not be able to be accessed? What about the author's own web site?)

I want to more clearly understand what constitutes "an acceptable source" and what, exactly is the "minimum" for citation requirements. Robert McClenon, who was kind enough to undertake the review, recommended that I post here rather than to him privately, hence this post.

Respectfully: Amy Waldman (aka "knowzalot')

Thank you in advance for all help and assistance!

Knowzalot (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Knowzalot. The subject of all articles must be notable. For a brief summary of our minimum standard of notability see the "golden rule." Since the author's website is not independent, it cannot be used to establish notability.

In addition all content of articles must be verifiable: All material in articles must be verifiable to a published reliable source. "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." —teb728 t c 23:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

See also Help:Referencing for beginners —teb728 t c 23:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! There's no question about her being notable, and there's also no issue with verifying what I'm using. I just want to make sure I'm documenting her notoriety appropriately! Knowzalot (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Knowzalot, I see that you're putting links in the middle of your draft. The main body of text should almost never link to other websites. You may want to take a look here: Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_Wiki_Markup/1. That has some basic explanation, and excellent video, showing how to add references. Basically, the sources you cite need to be wrapped inside <ref>source_information</ref>. That creates the numbered links in the article. Much better is if you use <ref>{{cite book |last=John |first=Doe |date= |title= |publisher= |page= |isbn=}}</ref>. The editor has a CITE button where you can select different Cite templates, and an easy interface to enter the information.

"Notability" means that your sources include at least a few independent Reliable Sources writing significant coverage of her. After you have sources establishing notability, you can cite places like Columbia University for supplementary info. You want sources verifying anything anyone might want to check - like being awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship. Alsee (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarification, you don't have to cite "the sky is blue", but pretty much everything else should have a source. For example it's possible but unlikely an editor could remove something as simple as an unsourced birthdate, but the bigger issue is that if a vandal changes the birthdate, we have no way to know which version is correct if there's no source. Alsee (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Alsee. I'm going to see what I can do about fixing these this afternoon and resubmitting. Knowzalot (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why my draft Data Excellence was rejected ?

Hello TeaHouse !

I wondering or curious about why my article Data Excellence submission was declined. I forward you the message of a reviewer: This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you.

I don't understand really what can i do ? Can you help me ? Yanniyolo (talk) 04:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse! Don't worry, Draft:Data Excellence has not yet been reviewed. It seems you accidentally submitted your testing sandbox User:Yanniyolo/sandbox and that was what was declined. Hope that clears things up. Happy Squirrel (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You are right It was a mistake. I am confused. I write my draft in the wrong area. So for editing a draft I have ti use the Sandbox.

But now what do I do? I'm in my sandbox and I rewritten my article on Data Excellence and I submit it . Or should I wait for the reviewer retire this reject because it is notice that: Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be rejected again.

Thank you Happy Squirrel for helping me ! I am little be lost^^Yanniyolo (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yanniyolo, don't worry about the notice on User:Yanniyolo/sandbox. Your initial sandbox project was moved to Draft:Data Excellence by Robert McClenon and now awaiting review. You just have to wait until someone reviews it. In the meantime you can do whatever you want to improve it.-- Chamith (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I don't have time for a full review, but after a quick read I would say you will have to make the language less promotional. Also, you need to properly show that people other than the originator of the idea are working on it. Currently what you show is that the originator is teaching about it in two institutions, but I am not sure this shows sufficient notability. Who else is doing research in this field? Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

revert

well I've been on here for 5 minutes and have managed to screw up already. please could you look at User:ChamithN think it may need reverting after I tried to copy user page and ended up changing users template. --Da-War-Lord34 (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Good. If you don't mess up once in a while, you're not learning anything new. And it isn't hard to undo; no harm done. I have reverted to before your changes. The actual page affected was User:ChamithN/Header.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Gronk Oz Thanks for that. --Da-War-Lord34 (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Da-War-Lord34. There are two things that would have allowed you to fix this yourself.

1) To check your edits so you can see where you made any change and navigate there: click "contributions" at the top of the page (that's the main way, but others are: when you are at your user or user talk pages, the link to "User contributions" goes to yours [when at another user's user or user talk page, that link goes to theirs]; you can also access them by typing Special:MyContributions into the search field).

2) Once you're at the page you want to fix, in order to to revert, click "history" at the top of the page → click on the date of the revision before your edits → click edit → click save. Voilà.

That method, called a manual revert, is powerful in that it allows you to revert to any (non-deleted or non-hidden) revision a page has ever had. However, in some situations you might find the undo button useful. It is limited to a single edit revision, and will fail if subsequent edits made changes to the same parts of the article as those involved in the one you're seeking to revert, but when applicable, it allows a revert of just the changes made in the one edit, without undoing subsequent changes made to the page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleting account

Question moved here from Talk page by ColinFine (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

How do you delete your account?😞

Crableg lover (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Crableg lover. It's not possible to delete an account. You can just stop using it; or if you are concerned about it staying there, you can change its name to something random-looking: see Right to vanish. --ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• This editor has obviously felt bullied by Wikipedia. Can't someone help them out by allowing them to vanish? --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Www.iranridex.com

I reviewed Draft:Www.iranridex.com and declined it as failing to establish notability and reading like an advertisement. I then received a message on my talk page from User:Aranoco, but it didn't ask a question other than to identify the user and the declined article. Would any other experienced editor try to explain why the draft was not accepted, beyond the need for references and the overall tone? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: It has quite a few issues, not least a major portion is a copyvio, Robert. I've given it a further review. Fiddle Faddle 18:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I see that you have commented on the quality of the English of the editor and have suggested the Farsi Wikipedia. I should try to remember that when a draft has special formatting or tables but no references, it is likely to be a copy-and-paste from a web site, which is a copyvio. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, Timtrent: The fact you both have the patience to work in the AfC review area is great. It's often thankless so thank you. I have deleted the draft under CSD G12 as a copyright violation (from the very first revision). You may not be aware – especially since the update of the section occurred relatively recently – but there are instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Step 1: Quick-fail criteria regarding copyright violations (click on show there for the instructions), that drafts should not be declined on that basis and the copyright violation allowed to remain, but rather the draft should be marked for speedy deletion, sent to WP:CP, or cleaned up (depending on circumstances). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Fuhghettaboutit I am perfectly aware of the instructions, but it is always pleasant to be reminded. I am also aware that it is not a G12 candidate if sufficient other material remains and it is considered that the article may be redeemable. I considered that sufficient non copyvio text was present to give it one brief chance. You viewed it differently.

I have no concerns about our disagreeing over this, but I felt it important to give you my rationale. I may have been in error, too, over the balance of the text that I felt likely to allow the draft to remain. Fiddle Faddle 20:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay Tim, but I'm not actually sure we're on the same page. The issue is not whether this should or should not have been marked for speedy deletion, but about leaving the copyright violation on display in the article once you've discovered it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I will also point out that it is not always obvious what is a copyright violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I get deletion message from other users so frequently

I have very less information baout my page as of now. Can I publish it on wikipedia without getting message of deletion iwishifindIwishifind (talk) 07:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You are right, Iwishifind there is very little information, and no sources, in the article Iwishifind] and it will likely get deleted. If you want to improve an article for a long time before publishing it, use the Articles for creation process. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 07:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• They won't be answering since they've been permanently banned! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• More correctly, MurderByDeadcopy, their account was blocked as a promotional username. The person behind the account was not banned, and can open another account with an acceptable username, and contribute in accordance with our policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk page messages

Who sends messages to administrators talk pages as Mediawiki message delivery, Signpost, The Daily Bugle, Edit a thon, Women in red, Today's pages for improvement, and so on. The Avengers 01:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Mass message senders, I assume. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 03:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

editing Duplucates

I am trying to delete duplicated on a article.(please see List_of_banned_films#List) however even though there duplicates I.e same name, same web links attached to them they have different descriptions and often different dates, reasons for banning film and Countries they where banned. does this still make them duplicates or still individual items?LoVeNoTwAr101 _{Lets Talk} 22:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoVeNoTwAr101 (talk • contribs)

LoVeNoTwAr101 hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I'm not clear on what you are trying to accomplish. I made one correction where I saw the same ref name but different content. Could you be more specific on what is wrong?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

LoVeNoTwAr101, how come your user name is LoVeNoTwAr101 but your signature links to User:LoVeNoTwAr (a non-existent user)? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, , thankyou for your observation regarding my user page not being recognizable. it would appear that when I created my signature I put my user incorrectly putting LoVeNoTwAr but forgetting to put 101 at the end. I have since changed this and rectified this problem. thanks again.LoVeNoTwAr101 _{Lets Talk} 16:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee, thanks for you response to this message. hopefully I can be more clear explaination of the problem. On the list of banned films on List_of_banned_films#List you will see that there are a duplicate of The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence) however even though they share the same name and date they are from different countries and have different discriptions, does this then make them duplicates that is then worthy of deletion or individual items? I ask this as I am trying to clean up this article so it does meet the correct criteria to be a Wikipedia article. Thanks LoVeNoTwAr101 _{Lets Talk} 17:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

LoVeNoTwAr101, its looks like the table is set up to have one entry per film per country that film is banned in. So if a film is banned in three countries, it will have three entries - each detailing the ban as it applies in an individual country. I therefore wouldn't delete "duplicates" if they concern bans of the same film in different states. Whether this is the best way to arrange the table is another matter. If you wanted to propose an alternative such as only listing each film once, with all of the countries it has been banned in listed against the single entry, the place to do that is on the article's talk page Cordless Larry (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

My article looks likes an advert!

My article "Purva Patel" gets constant messages that it look like an advertisement. Please help!

Vatsapatel13 (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Vatsapatel13 and welcome to the Teahous. The "advert" tag was added twice by user Jeraphine Gryphon (talk). You can go to her talk page and ask what her concern was and if she thinks it has been fixed. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 08:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The article's tone, the way it's been written, is overly promotional, that's what the tag means. Terms and phrases like "understated design aesthetics", "sharp eye for detailings", "key to her work", "flawless detailings", "Driven by a passion", "known for her exquisite work", etc etc etc -- this is not neutral or encyclopedic language. You can't write like that on here. The whole article needs to be rewritten. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vatsapatel13: I notice that one section of your draft is copied verbatim from Anita Dongre (including Anita's name). How much of your draft is about Patel and how much about other people? —teb728 t c 12:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The article in question is Draft:Purva Patel. A portion of the draft was redacted by an administrator as copyright violation. It has been declined as failing to establish her notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The draft had been published at Purva Patel, and deleted, more than once; a few different SPAs have worked on it. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Help with my page

Hi I am trying to post a profile - I received a message that it does not meet the standards, and may be deleted. They send a page of links on many topics, however I cannot tell which standards it does not meet? the page is Cheryl McKenzie Host for APTN News. I want to do some others and am new at this , so any help to learn how to do this the right way is much appreciated.Lea Clarke-Bernard (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lea Clarke-Bernard, the article has several typos and also hasn't any independent sources. I know that she's a news anchor, but has she been written about in newspapers or something? That is the biggest issue. I would do a search for her on Google News and see if anything comes up. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi thank you - some of the interesting details are from the company - there is one independent article. I will look for others. Thank you for helping me because I was not sure what was lacking. Also my first language is Cree so I will spell check again for typos. it is hard sometimes for me in English. We need a Cree-pedia. :) Lea Clarke-Bernard (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I will do some typo checking there as well. A Cree language version would be interesting and possibly doable, if enough Cree speakers and writers were willing to work on it. ☺White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 01:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again for all you help I have tried to fix all the references. When and if I can get this one looking good and I know what I am doing better I would like to do another It is fun and this is a helpful place.

Lea Clarke-Bernard (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The article in question is Cheryl McKenzie. Please do not refer to Wikipedia articles as "profiles". Some editors think that Wikipedia articles can be used as profiles, like social media or directory profiles. Wikipedia does not have profiles, but encyclopedic articles. In this case, the article is indeed an encyclopedic article, and is no longer tagged, so it looks as if the issues have been addressed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Lea Clarke-Bernard, have you seen cr:ᓃᔥᑕᒻᐹᔅᑌᒋᓂᑲᓐ? It only has 92 articles, but a Cree-language Wikipedia does exist. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Growtopia

Hi, this draft has been deleted because of copyright violations. What types of information can be used for the draft which can be used and is a reliable source?Democratics (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Democratics and welcome to the Teahouse. Copyright violations aren't about what sources you use. It's about how you use them. Copying and pasting text from the web (or elsewhere) is never allowed. You need to write what the sources say in your own words. As for what sources to use, see: Identifying reliable sources. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 12:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

When looking for reliable sources, Democratics, a good place to start would be features or reviews in well-established online games magazines. From a quick search, I found a number of possible sources that you could use. Avoid the blogs, but sources such as the Pocket Gamer articles are likely to be considered reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Question About Fictional Page as Creative Project

I reviewed User:Sandbox421/sandbox and discovered that it said that it was a fictional page as part of a creative project. It is an account of a flu pandemic in 2025. I declined it. I then noticed that the same article was also in User:Sandbox421 as a user page. I nominated it for Miscellany for Deletion as a WP:FAKEARTICLE. My question is whether other editors agree as to nominating the user page, and whether other editors think that the sandbox should also have been nominated for deletion. Sandboxes may be used for a variety of purposes. May they be used for creative projects that are not oriented to building the encyclopedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

They should be deleted per WP:U5. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 04:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The pages have been speedy deleted per WP:U5. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

If someone wants to write a speculative novel about a 2025 flu pandemic, then that is a wonderful venture. But it is entirely inappropriate as an unfinished novel for any type of Wikipedia page. The internet teems with websites that would happily host such a project.

The topic grabs me though because my grandfather lost his first wife in the 1918-1919 flu pandemic, a widower left with four young ones. He hired a farm girl to help, fell in love and married her, my grandmother, raising together the four and having three more children between them, the youngest, my mother, born when he was 49 years old. Without that terrible pandemic, I would not have ever been born. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It was a much better work than many of the drafts I see at Articles for Creation. It just wasn't the right sort of work for Wikipedia. It was a good work of science fiction. Unfortunately, that isn't what Wikipedia is for. A lot of the stuff at Articles for Creation is only what social media is for, or even isn't what anything is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we can encourage the user to write articles about actual disease pandemics, as they have talent as a writer. Surely it could be put to good use here, and we could then encourage them to write their sci-fi privately and send it to a publisher instead of Wikipedia. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 16:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

WIP Banner

How do you make a banner on the front of a page saying "WIP:Work In Progress"? PokestarFan (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi PokestarFan, you can use this template: {{under construction|date=December 2015}}. It will produce a banner that says, "This article is in the process of major expansion or reconstruction..." I don't know of another work in progress banner, but this one conveys the idea very well. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@PokestarFan: If you're only working for a couple of hours, you could also use the {{in use}} template. The {{under construction}} should be used if the work will last for days. Click on the links if you want to see what the result looks like. w.carter-Talk 00:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

W.carter, The {{under construction}} template is intended for use between editing sessions. The {{in use}} template is for use during editing sessions. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

—Ooops! Checkingfax that is a distinction I was blissfully unaware of. Thanks for the info! w.carter-Talk 00:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome PokestarFan, Use the Filly's template when you are taking a break from editing. If you are actively editing use this template:

{{In use|30 minutes to fix the History section|time=~~~~~}}

You can change the minutes to whatever time you need (or even to hours) and you can change the message, but leave the time= blank, and don't change the ~~~~~ part either. Yes, that is FIVE tildes. Five tildes will display the time and date only and will not leave your username.

Whenever you take a break, switch back to Filly's under construction template. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

PS:If you are running out of time you can go back and increase the time needed in the template and save your change. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Btw, Checkingfax, looking at the documentation of the {{under construction}} I can't find where it says it should be used between sessions. (There is the possibility that I'm blind...) The phrase there is: This template is for articles actively undergoing construction. That is why I thought it could be used during the entire session. Perhaps your explanation should be added to the documentation so that others can avoid making the same mistake I made. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 00:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

And at the documentation of {{in use}} it says If you wish to indicate that an article is being rebuilt over a longer period of time consider the {{Under construction}} template. This is very confusing... w.carter-Talk 00:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

W.carter, On the actual {{in use}} template it states:

[...] If you are the editor who added this template, please be sure to remove it or replace it with {{Under construction}} between editing sessions.

Confusing indeed. I have put in an edit request for the {{under construction}} template to sync the language up with the {{in use}} template. Once that is done I will update the documentation on each page to match the template nomenclature. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear All (PokestarFan—W.carter—White Arabian Filly), Paine Ellsworth updated the Templates {{in use}} and {{under construction}} and updated their documentation. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

PokestarFan

Thank you. PokestarFan (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Robert. I did not make the difference between profile and artcile but I see what you mean.

And thank you Cordless. Yes I know that site. Everyone thank you for the help. Lea Clarke-Bernard (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

On talk pages for articles how do you join a discussion?

Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Rhetoricalnoodle and welcome to the Teahouse. To post on an article talk page, do the same thing that you have done here. Simply write your message after what other people have said. In doing so, follow the talk page guidelines. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Rhetoricalnoodle: From what I've seen on Wikipedia I would say the most important rule with talk pages is to keep conversations focused on he article, rather than the article's subject. Anyone can join a discussion, and as a rule users should be polite to one another and not comment on the character of another editor, instead focusing on the ideas put forward by said editor. Thanks and I hope this helps, --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 22:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Use of a primary source.

The Wikipedia article on Capt. R. Johnston VC states that 'In 1911 Johnston returned to Ireland..'. However, the minutes of the 1908 Annual General Meeting of The Island Golf Club, Dublin, records the Captain R. Johnston VC with an address at 22, Lower Mount Street, Dublin was elected a member during the year. From what I have read of your policy on primary sources, this information would not be acceptable as an addition to the article. Am I correct in this assumption?Tacitus11 (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tacitus11. It is always useful to give the exact name of an article being discussed. In this case, it is Robert Johnston (VC). You are correct that primary sources are not the best, especially for this type of fact. It seems that this man traveled frequently between England and Ireland. It is plausible that he could have been a member of a golf club in Ireland, with a Dublin address, while maintaining a primary residence in England as well. So you can't conclude anything about his place of residence from this single fact in isolation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

However, you can sometimes use a primary source, it isn't a blanket prohibition. WP:PRIMARY explains it pretty well. Montanabw^(talk) 00:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Using primary sources

I've read WP:PRIMARY, so I'm pretty sure that I understand the "gold standard." I'm trying to get a better sense of when to let something go as passable vs pursue it further. I'll use the article on Courtship disorder as an example. There's an active AFD, but it's for different reasons and it doesn't look like it will be deleted. I picked that article though b/c the AFD caught my attention and I've been thinking about the way the citations were done since then. The article heavily references one researcher, Freund. The bulk of the non-Freund references are at the very end of the article in a section specifically dedicated to justifying the subject's notability. That doesn't seem like an appropriate use of secondary and tertiary sources to me, but am I wrong about that?

Another thing is that the article was written and has been edited primarily by one person who posted a disclosure on the talk page acknowledging that he cited himself one time in this article. I don't want to begrudge him that citation, because it seems relevant, it was only one time and it was commendable that he noted so on the talk page. In general though, what are most people's thoughts on citing yourself even one time? It feels odd. Thank you! Permstrump (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Permstrump: It sounds like the article is, at best, poorly written. Having said that, I'd say citing a source directly connected to the subject is not the same as citing onself: unless this is literally what the editor with the COI is doing. Could you name the dispute, or would this be unhelpful? Thanks, Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 00:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: I meant AFD, not RFD, so I fixed what I wrote above FYI. And it looks like between when I posted my comment and your reply, the AFD was closed with the decision to keep the article, so the banner disappeared. There's the link though. It was sort of a weird AFD b/c someone initiated it on behalf of an anonymous user who had raised strongly worded concerns in the talk section. The anonymous user didn't seem to realize there was an AFD b/c they never chimed in. It didn't seem like the reasons were very valid anyway. I feel it probably has a POV issue and is arguably UNDUE, but probably shouldn't be deleted entirely (I elaborated in the AFD, so I won't repeat it all here). People replied to the AFD without saying much, just commenting that it seemed notable based on the number of times it has been cited. It doesn't seem like anyone else is going to initiate addressing the POV issues in any kind of meaningful way, so I'm trying to figure out if that's b/c they weren't looking at it from that angle or if it's b/c I should just leave well enough alone too. What do you think? Permstrump (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Permstrump: I would say that the IP who led to the AfD likely didn't understand Wikipedia policy, as "It's extremely sexist..." simply sounds like I don't like it, so somebody should delete it. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 00:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Permstrump: Are Freund and Watson the primary sources? I can't say I'm familiar with medical areas; if this article is overly relying on primary sources, according to WP:MEDREF it is not reliably sourced. However, these are issues with the article being poorly referenced; having a bad article is not a good reason for its deletion, per WP:RUBBISH. I hope this helps. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 01:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Hah yes, I agree that was probably anon's thought process. I didn't think it should be deleted, but I saw a notice for the AFD on WP:PSYCHOLOGY, and then developed my own separate concerns about the the way the primary sources (Freund & Watson) were used for the bulk of the article with a bunch of non-primary sources lumped into a small section at the very end. And Cantor is the author who cited himself once. I think the article would probably feel less biased if it had been developed based on secondary and tertiary sources, instead of only using those at the end to demonstrate notability. But my question is, would most editors think it's good enough as is? I've definitely seen much worse. But now that I've looked into this article for the AFD, I do wonder if it should have its own article or if it should be condensed and merged with a parent topic. I was trying to use the article as an example to ask more of a general question though, like, is the way the person used sources for this article usually considered problematic or does it seem better compared to other articles since there technically are other verifiable and reliable sources that exist to support it? Permstrump (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Permstrump: I would say that literally citing yourself is a very, very bad idea; when citing sources, if you can cite yourself, it is always better not to: I'd say to use the other sources, if they do verify what the article says. I would say that a very large proportion of articles on Wikipedia have no references, insufficient references, or unreliable references: there are articles without enough references, and over 5,000,000 articles, so a horrifying number probably have unreliable sources; especially medical articles, which require high quality sources. But we can all work to fix this, and we are, bit by bit, day by day, ref by ref. Personally I'm not sure how it fares, but I think it is definitely poorly referenced. If you do consider carrying out a merge, I would take WP:BEFORE into consideration and check thoroughly for potential references from anywhere else. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 01:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Thank you for taking the time to respond to my vague question. :) This helps me put it in perspective... bit by bit, not all or nothing. Thanks again! :) Permstrump (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Permstrump: You're welcome. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 02:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Publishing from sandbox

I am trying to turn a sandbox article into an actual article for a class project and am having problems. This article was written as part of the CSUSB African Archaeology Wiki Ed class and I need to have it published from my sandbox in order to receive my final grade. Everything I have found has said the I just needed to use the move function and designate it as an article and indicate that I was submitting it as an article as the reason. The problem is that after I moved the article it still says that it is a sandbox article. Is there some sort of waiting period for it to be approved or something because I need to have this done by 12/15/15 in order to get my grade and pass the class. Thank you for your help T0rqu3b0t (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The article in question is The pottery of Manda Island. You have moved the article into article space. Who is your instructor? There is a real problem with instructors who set a deadline (the end of the class) for students to have an article accepted, and who grade the article in article space. In Wikipedia, there is no deadline, but, in addition, once an article gets into article space, it is not your own, and it can be edited ruthlessly by other editors. In the specific case, I can remove the template that says that it is a sandbox article, but the article still needs a lot of work, and is likely to be tagged as needing work. We can try to help you, but I think that your instructor has given you an unreasonable deadline. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@T0rqu3b0t: {{User sandbox}} is just a heading that you can remove when the article is no longer in your userspace: I've removed it now. Good luck with your assignment, and feel free to ask if you have any more questions. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 01:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@T0rqu3b0t: @Robert McClenon: Should this be moved back into userspace? --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 01:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

No, do not move it back into user space. If it were in draft space, I would approve it. The work that it needs mainly is the addition of wikilinks to other articles, such as Manda Island and other place names. It is well-sourced, and belongs in mainspace. I shouldn't have said that it needed a lot of work, only that it isn't finished (but nothing in Wikipedia is finished). Thank you for removing the sandbox template. The student did well at getting the article into article space condition in time, but we have a recurrent problem with instructors who want students to put articles in mainspace by the end of the class.

Thank you so much!!!!!T0rqu3b0t (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@T0rqu3b0t: No problem. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 02:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)