Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 45

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

→

Question on Notability

Hi there. I am working on my first article about a poet and professor....Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brian Clements. I am running into a notability problem. I just added a few newspaper and journal articles. Does that usually establish notability? Before I resubmit the article, I wanted to make sure I fixed the problems. Thanks. Boatlady2012 (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello back at you, Boatlady2012. I'm looking at some of your references. The problem is that there needs to be source material which is both wide and deep in terms of its coverage of a subject. There are no hard-and-fast quantitative rules, but in general, sources need to be numerous (i.e. wide in coverage, many different sources covering a person's life) and substantial in nature (i.e. deep in coverage: sources need to go into some detail on the facts of a person's life, not just mention their name in passing). Looking at the sources you have provided, none of them seem to cover any aspect of Brian Clements life in the type of detail that would qualify them as deep (or "not trivial in nature" as the guidelines tend to say). They certainly mention his name; but heck I could dig up a dozen or so times in my life my name has been mentioned in a newspaper; that doesn't equate to anyone writing anything significant about any aspect of my life. 1 spoken-word-flute-maya this source you cite only mentions his name, but doesn't give a whole lot of information about him. this source dedicates all of two sentences about what he's done, and it's buried in the middle of a bunch of community anouncements unrelated to each other. this source is written by his own publisher, which means it lacks the independence necessary (the publisher has a vested interest in promting him, so it doesn't really indicate that people have found him noteworthy), and it's also not really a deep source about him. There's two very short reviews about his work, with no indication of the significance of the reviewers themselves, and the info about him amounts to a single sentence. this source just lists him as an employee somewhere. Many organizations list their employees or members somewhere, it doesn't mean people have written about their lives. this shows he was published in a journal; again it doesn't show that anyone has written about his life, just a brief sentence about having one of his works accepted for publication. this source does cover him in some detail, but we're stuck with the issue of reliability. It's a self-published blogspot blog, the source itself isn't reliable: anybody can put up a blogspot blog. The blog itself has no editorial control, and no widespread reputation for reliability. That's every source you used in the text. If that's it, I can't find any sources which are simultaneously indepndent, reliable, and substantial in their coverage of his life. You'd need some of those before the subject is considered notable. Not every person on the planet has attracted that kind of attention, so it may be that there's not much more you can do right now. It's possible; maybe there are sources in existance you have missed. But if there aren't, then Wikipedia's policy is that such a person doesn't merit an article about them. If you think about it, that makes sense: If we want an encyclopedia article to be informative it needs to have enough details to be useful. Those details need to come from reliable, trustworthy sources, especially about living people. If there isn't a source of information which is independent, reliable, and substantial, there's nothing to "hang" the text of the article on. I hope this all makes sense. Is there anything else we can help you with? --Jayron32 13:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, this helps a lot. I wonder if it would make a difference if I used some of the selected interviews, featuring Brian Clements, as references instead of just listing them on the page? Like, http://htmlgiant.com/?p=6357.Boatlady2012 (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Upload a picture

I have gone round and round trying to figure out how to upload a picture and not have it deleted and I cannot figure it out from the available instructions. I created a page on my subject, Warren Coats. He emailed me a picture of himself he took and owns and he just wants it in the public domain. Could someone please just tell me the steps I have to take? Thank you. Odellhuff (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Odellhuff, and welcome to The Teahouse. You'll want to read over Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for all the details, but briefly what you do is upload the picture, and tag it with {{OTRS pending}} while you have the photographer (NOT THE SUBJECT. The photographer owns the copyright on their pictures in most cases) send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org explaining that they are releasing the image into the public domain (which they are not required to do. They can release it under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 liscense as well, which allows them to retain certain rights). You say he took the picture himself, you may want to be careful about that: unless it is obvious he took it himself, people are going to come to the conclusion that another person was aiming the camera and pressing the button, and that person is the presumptive copyright holder. So just make sure the correct person emails Wikipedia with the relevent permissions, then upload and tag the photo with the OTRS pending tag, and one of the volunteers that mans the permissions email system will be along to assure that the licensing is correct. Does all that make sense? Please do also read the page I recommended, it has some more details as well. --Jayron32 18:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Jayron for your help. Odellhuff (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Two questions

I have two questions.

How does one get hotlinks in one's signature on Talk pages? For example, how did Shar1R get his signature just above the heading introducing these two questions? I try to sign useing four tilde characters followed by my username, MartinCollin, but this does not produce the hotlinks I hope to get. Specifically, it does not hotlink my username and does not introduce a hotlink to my talk page.
How does one delete a page which one has entered, if one has decided that introducing it was an error? This rarely happens to me but it happened the other day. Specifically, I introduced this page but now I think it is superfluous and want to delete it. How do I do that?

Thanks MartinCollin 15:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)MartinCollin

Hey, Martin, welcome to the Teahouse! For your first question, this is usually because of a misconfigured setting in your preferences. If you click on the "My preferences" link on the top of the page, you'll see a section labeled "Signature". There'll be a checkbox in it that reads "Treat the above as wiki markup". This box needs to be unchecked; it's really only useful if you're doing fancy things with your signature (like mine!). Once you do that, the four tildes should work!

For your second question, you can request deletion of a page which you mistakenly created by putting the G7 speedy deletion tag on it. You can do this by writing {{db-g7}} at the top of the page. You should know, however, that this only works if you're the only person who has significantly contributed to it; if others have also started writing it, then you lose that option. Now, I think you should be in the clear to use it on this page in particular; nobody's done anything with it but add categories and tags, so it shouldn't be a big deal. Just keep it in mind for the future. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Article and history blanked

An admin moved the T-10 Heavy Tank article to T-10 tank (a good call in itself, I think), but in the process, he actually made both pages redirects with no history, blanking the article. I don't know how long the article was, but presumably it should exist (all that's left now is a short section in the Iosif Stalin tank article (T-10 is a model of Iosif Stalin, probably worthy of an article of its own). Could someone with more powers than me restore the article that was, until September 25th, in T-10 Heavy Tank? Muad (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Muad, welcome to the TeaHouse. I have restored T-10 tank. The move from T-10 Heavy Tank was accidentally performed three times. The second time it deleted the content which was moved the first time. Thanks for pointing out the problem. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

speedy deletion due to G11

I have created a page about a free educational organization. but they deleted it. Now on my request admin putted it in my userspace. I can move it back to the article space after making changes. But i don't know what kind of changes it requires. Can anyone help me?

Fahad Malik 10:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malikfaadi (talk • contribs)

Hi Fahad, and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking over the page in question, there are several things you need to do to improve it.

First, read the conflict of interest guideline. As the EVP of the society, you may find it hard to write about it in a neutral way; this guide will help you to do that.
Then , remove or rewrite anything that wouldn't look out of place in an advert or on the society's website. Phrases like "state of the art", "make the student more confident", "innovation and novelty" and so on are not suitable for an encyclopedia. You may find this page useful.
Next, you need to demonstrate that the society is notable, by Wikipedia standards. For this, you need to provide independent, reliable sources - the golden rule is worth looking at. You need to locate publications which have written about FUUAST in detail, and that are not associated or affiliated with it.
You can take out the list of team members, unless any of them are notable enough for their own articles.

You could also consider submitting the page to articles for creation, rather than trying to recreate it as an article again; that way other editors will be able to check it for you. Hope this helps, Yunshui 雲‍水 10:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

New Article Creation - Sandbox Issue

I'm a novice here and need some guidance. I submitted my new article yesterday and received the following message:

"This sandbox is in the Wikipedia talk namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template."

This is the page I am speaking of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Getsmartinfo/sandbox

Can you please advise my error and how I can remedy the situation. I have researched creating a new article but do find some of the information confusing as there is so much of it. Thanking you in advance for your guidance OllieGetsmartinfo (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ollie. Not a problem - all that's happened is that the template {{User sandbox}} was carried across when you moved the page to Articles for Creation. Since the template is only supposed to appear in the User: namespace, you get an error message at AfC (which is in the Talk: namespace). I've removed the template for you, and thus the error message as well.

Your page is currently submitted for review; another editor will be along soon who will review it and see whether it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. If it does, they will move it to article space, making it "live". If they find problems with it, they will leave some comments and send you a message to let you know it's been reviewed. You are, however, free to carry on working at the page at its new location. Hope this is helpful, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Confused about copyright status of an image

Hi! I want to upload a picture and I am uncertain about its copyright status. The picture is of my great-uncle who was a military person and died in WWII. Hence, the picture comes from my private family collection and in addition the picture was taken by an uncle of the person, who was a photographer by profession. The picture was taken in 1944 and the photographer died in 1978 and was from the UK.

The picture has been published in a book in 2008, but it was my family who provided the picture for the book.

I hope someone can tell me what the appropriate copyright status is in this situation. Thank you. Linabar (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Linabar, thanks for stopping by The Teahouse. I'm not a copyright expert, but after checking up on the File Upload Wizard, I think you have a couple of options here. It sounds like the photograph was given to your family by the photographer. If that is the case, you can claim ownership of the photo and the copyright is yours. Another option is that you can claim fair use of the photograph if your purpose is to only show a historic portrait of someone who is no longer alive, even if the copyright belongs to someone else. That would mean you would use the photo in article specifically about the subject. You can find both of these options in the File Upload Wizard, but you do need to provide the information about the photo like photographer and date of publication. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Linabar, welcome to the Teahouse. If you are an heir to the photographer and the possessor of the photograph then I believe you can release the photo into the public domain (any one else reading this answer I'm happy to take a second opinion on this). If you are happy to release the image into the public domain then I would upload it at Commons and use the licence tag {{PD-heir}}. NtheP (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies. I am indeed an heir to the photographer and the possessor of the photograph so then I suppose the copyright is mine. I am not sure if I would like to release the image to the public domain. If I just want to upload the picture to an article and claim copyright over it, how should I proceed? This adding images to Wikipedia is surely one of the more complicated parts of editing! Linabar (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Linabar, the copyright will remain yours - that is an unalterable right until 70 years after the photographer's death, but by uploading the image onto Wikipedia or Commons will mean that the image can be used by anyone for any purpose in the future. The alternative, as Jethrobot mentioned, would be to upload the image under the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria - this is a much more limited use and prevents re-use. However the 10 criteria have to be strictly adhered to and non-compliance with any can lead to the image being deleted. Out of interest can I ask who the image is of? NtheP (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. OK, so fair use is the same as non-free content. Would the {{Non-free with permission}} tag work then, if I provide a rational about the permission to use the picture for the article? Since I can be linked to this person when people google his name I would rather not say his name here, but I can at least say that he fought on the Allied side of the war :) Linabar (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the non-free use assertion shown on this page, the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia. This permission does not extend to third parties.

This tag must be used in conjunction with another non-free use image tag. If no other tag is present on this page, and this image was uploaded after May 19, 2005, please speedily delete this image or tag it with {{db-f3}}.

To the uploader: Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each use, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

That tag is fine but as it says it needs to be in addition to a non-free use rationale for each use of the image. The non-free use rationale is not about permission but why the use of this particular non-free media on an article is required. One of the biggest risks about using the image on a non-free basis is falling foul of Non Free Content Criteria #1 (NFCC#1) which is about No free equivalent.

Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)

If the subject is, for example, well known then it's not too difficult to argue that a free image can be found. NtheP (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand. It says on a Wikipedia article that "You should also describe as much as possible about the permission including who from and conditions" but indeed the rationale from the tag refers to fair use and not permission. Thanks very much for your help and I'll gladly come by for another cup of tea when I run into additional barriers :) Linabar (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I would ask that you reconsider publishing the photograph under the wikipedia Attribution/Sharealike licence. This will mean that other people can use the photo provided they credit you (as the copyright holder) and if the modify the photo they modified version is available under the same licence. Yes it is true that there are sites out there which ignore these conditions but they do the same to copyright photos. The only way to stop that happening is to keep it locked in a drawer. Please reconsider. filceolaire (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Unbuzzed?

I attempted to fix a short article that "appears to be written like[sic] an advertisement". Could somebody review it to see if tag could be removed? Btw, I have no affiliation with subject (Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center). ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi E! Thanks for coming by the Teahouse :) Great work on editing the article. It's looking much better - and I removed the advertisement template. What do you plan to edit next? SarahStierch (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You know how it is -- one thing leads to another... [WARNING: Wikipedia editing may be habit forming]. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

How to handle NFL infobox for players on free agency?

So when a NFL player is a free agent, aka they're not currently on a team, there seems to be two ways to handle it in the NFL infobox.

The first is set the jersey number and team to the last team the player played on and set his status to "Free agent"

The second is to set the jersey number to --, the team to "Free agent" and status to "Free agent".

I'm leaning towards the first one because it 'appears' to be the most common but could use some guidance, I'm a newby here. :)

Jostout (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Howdy, Jostout. Welcome to the Teahouse. I was going to refer you to Wikiproject NFL and their recommended Article formats. Then I looked and found that the recommended format for players is not yet written. So be Bold. Choose whichever you think is most appropriate. Add a note to the talk page for the free agent explaining why. You might also start a discussion on the Project NFL talk page to get some consensus on how to consistently deal with free agents in the future. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 17:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

How do I set up a hyperlink to my professor Sandrasmission (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I am struggling with the most basic. Student trying to wiki article. Need to set up hyperlink. no clue Sandrasmission (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Sandra. Welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. You are not the first to feel overwhelmed by everything Wikipedia. Most of us were when we started. If you describe in more detail what you want to hyperlink, we can help. Is writing an article in Wikipedia an assignment? So that you need to send a link to your professor for a grade? Or do you want to write an article about your professor? Let us know what specific page you want to hyperlink.

Once you do a few, hyperlinking is easy. Just copy the http:// address from your browser. The link to your question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#How_do_I_set_up_a_hyperlink_to_my_professor. The full hyperlink to your talk page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandrasmission] but once you are signed on to Wikipedia, it is shortened to [[User talk:Sandrasmission|talk]]. The pipe ( | ) makes that turn into just talk when you view it. Click the [Edit] to the right of your question to see the codes that create what you see. The "<nowiki>" markup you will see prevents Wikipedia from converting the links into Wikilinks.

To start your article, click on the "My sandbox" at the very top of the page and just start typing. If you wrote your article off-line in a word processing program, save it as a text only file. Then you can cut-and-paste from the text file into your sandbox. Before you get too far, work through the Tutorial to learn basic Wikipedia editing. Before long, it will become almost automatic. If your article is an assignment and you need to send your professor a link to show your work, the link will be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sandrasmission/sandbox[1]. (If you click on the number in brackets, it will take you to your sandbox page; that's a wikilink.)

I hope this helps get you started. Drop by again when you have more questions. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 17:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about notability

Hi, I noticed that an article didn't exist for Leila Gurruwiwi so I thought I would have a go at creating one - also, I've been thinking about contributing to wikipedia for a while and I figured I might as well just go for it.

My question is, I got a bit confused by the notability guidelines for people, so I'm not sure if my article includes enough to meet requirements? I made a draft here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angelbird72/Leila_Gurruwiwi

Thanks very much for any help. Angelbird72 (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Angelbird72, welcome to the Teahouse and congratulations for taking the plunge! Looking at your article I can see you've got the general idea about what is required. Generally a good first attempt. In particular the Bendigo Advertiser and Weekly Review articles are particularly strong news sources about Gurruwiwi. Mind you, some of the other sources are weaker - The Age writes about the TV show, with just a brief mention of Gurruwiwi saying "how confident she is". In my view the basics are there, it is ready to submit for an Articles for Creation review. Good luck! Sionk (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Some vandals are trying to vandalize me

Wikipedia does not care about vandals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titanic225 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really a question, but okay. Can you link us to where said vandalism is occurring so we don't have to guess? Have you already tried reverting the vandalism? Most vandals aren't even slightly persistent, and in the rare event someone is running around at length vandalising things, you can report them at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress and get them shot down awfully fast. Have you tried doing anything to help address the issue, or did you just want to vent? MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes we do. Vandalism is a very serious thing and is reverted almost instantly by this guy (an automated bot), or disallowed by the edit filter. If they don't catch it, there are many users, including myself that watch a page that lists all of the recent edits on Wikipedia. Vandals are warned, reported, and blocked. For more information on vandalism, please see the CVUA. Electric Catfish (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a procedure for reporting vandalism on an article I did not contribute to?

I was doing some research for a piece I'm writing, and found myself reading the article for the Disney movie "Dinosaur". At first I was simply confused by a sentence that ended in the middle, and another that started in the middle. I realized the article had been vandalized when I stumbled across this little ~gem~: "and they were sud 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 mega tons on dollars because of it the real ending is that the big fox ate the world and raped it out and that how the dinosaurs died". It would be nice to know if there is a rule of etiquette for this situation, should I find the same at a later date.

SinMacD (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like someone already reverted the vandalism. Next time I think you should just be bold and remove the vandalism yourself (when you see it)! –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

For something that's obviously vandalism, nobody is going to criticise you for just tackling it. You can also glance at the article's history tab to see if there were multiple vandal edits made. If you're feeling ambitious, you can also click on the IP's address in the History tab to see their Contributions, if you feel like checking to see if they're been tampering with multiple articles.

It is important to mention, "Vandalism" is very specific: it's changes that couldn't possibly have been meant constructively. Part of Wikipedia etiquette is WP:AGF ("assume good faith"), so don't call someone a vandal unless, like in the circumstance you note, they're obviously being destructive. If an edit just has poor grammar/spelling/formatting, doesn't have a footnote, appears to be faulty information, or looks like "sandboxing" (someone trying out the Edit function and maybe not realising that they're actually changing articles), don't immediately assume they're a vandal. You can still, of course, revert their edits no matter how well-intentioned if they're simply not good edits, but the label "Vandal" should only be applied to blatant ill-intentioned editing.

Not that you have to get this far into it, especially when you're new to editing, but for reference if you ever want to leave an editor a message saying "don't vandalise" or "I reverted your edits because you didn't provide a reference", etc. there's a really handy list of automatic message templates: Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. Just a useful tool if you ever feel like helping advise folks what they did wrong. Thanks for prioritising proper etiquette, but feel free to correct vandalism whenever you see it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way,

Thank you for the link to talk template messages – I've been looking for that. –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Basic electronic circuit image upload has copyright?

Hi! There is an "asking for a drawing" in an Wiki article. I did it using a CAD, but I am not sure about copyrights of electronic circuits. It is a basic electronic circuit, generally used in bigger or more complex circuits. I see no reason for it having copyrights, but the law is the law, so... I will appreciate any help. Hebert Peró (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hebert, thanks for stopping by The Teahouse. Before you submit your image, I have a few questions. First, where are you planning on using your image? And second, are there any images on Electronic circuit that would be suitable for what you want to use? As for your question about whether depictions of basic circuit are copyrighted, I'm not entirely sure. My guess is that drawings of basic circuits, specifically those created by you, are probably not subject to copyright (see this image as an example). Other hosts, please chime in if I am way off in my assessment here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I Jethrobot, I concur with your assessment that basic circuit drawings will not be subject to copyright as they are basically a list of "facts" (A connects to B, etc.) and constitute the core knowledge of the field, similar to most math equations. So in my opinion, a phase-locked loop or J-K flipflop circuit diagram are fine. I think a good rule of thumb is whether or not "every" manufacturer in the field would use the identical circuit. As far as assigning specific resistance, capacitance, etc. values (specific values chosen by one manufacturer), I'm not as clear - so I would maybe avoid giving values and use only the symbols instead. As you say, knowing the actual application would be helpful, so I would encourage Hebert to go ahead and upload the image and post a link here so we can evaulate it. Hope that helps! Franamax (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Multiple cover arts

Hey, I was editing an article about the PS Vita game Wipeout 2048. I was adding the North American cover art, but once I add my pic, the original European version disappears. I was hoping to have both displayed. What should I do?

ie:

|image = [[File:Wipeout 2048 Boxart.jpg|256px]]
|caption = European Cover Art
|image = [[File:Wipeout_2048_North_American.jpg|256px]]
|caption = North American Art

I appreciate the help!Tomastaz (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Tomastaz, welcome to the Teahouse. Firstly an apology, I've reformatted your question slightly so that the images don't show. This is because as they non-free images we would have to write a non-free image rationale for each explaining their use on this page. The infobox that you are trying to insert the images into specifically does not support the use of multiple images. The template guidance says "Avoid multiple images" to keep it in line with criteria 3 of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. This criteria is concerned with keeping the use of non-free content to a minimum and says "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." So if you think that the use of the two different images in the article is justified then you can only put one in the infobox and the other would have to be inserted into the body of the article. NtheP (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Name change (but only in capital lettering)

Hi there, I recently asked for a name change (but only in the capital lettering on the tail), which was executed well. Unfortunately I was still logged in under the old version of the name when I made a small change to a 'Rejection of Jesus' page. So all the contributions I've made in the past carry the correct name, except this one. Any thoughts? Just very keen on the consistency. many thanks SamCardioNgo (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Sam, welcome back to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, I don't think there's anything to be done here; I'm pretty sure we can't merge contribution histories, only move them around from name to name. I wouldn't let it bother you too much, though; I know that a mislabeled edit is anathema to the ordered mind, but it's not that big a deal in the end, I think. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What if ordered mind wanted to delete the edit and re-do under the correct name? ;) SamCardioNgo (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Reference improvements

Hi there,

My very first article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Casswell was declined due to a lack of adequate references, but I have made improvements since, adding a few more secondary sources. Could someone please check it whether it is sufficient for an approval? What I really would like to avoid is waiting for weeks (it now has 800 and more backlog) to get the article reviewed and told it needs more work... Uisce81 (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Uisce81, I've had a look at your draft article. I see you've added several additional sources since the last review. Unfortunately, I still don't think they are 'reliable' sources. We consider reliable sources to be ones that have some sort of editorial control, things like newspapers, magazines or authoritative/expert books. And articles by Casswell don't count towards this (the coverage needs to be independent from him too). At the end of the day, this sort of evidence is needed to prove he is widely known, or 'notable' as we like to call it on Wikipedia. I'd recommend you keep on looking for some good coverage about him. Sionk (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sionk, many thanks for taking your time for the feedback. Much appreciated.

I think the problem lies in the fact the topic of my article is primarily a studio musician. Please bear with me, I would like to understand this issue of reference and notability correctly as I'm into studio musicians especially who were active in the 80's and I'm thinking of writing articles on a couple more musicians if this article goes well.
Most studio musicians, producers, engineers, or any of the background guys in the industry, even though they are established and well-known in the industry and to fellow musicians, do not have much public coverage, as they are not normally the ones in limelight.
The topic of my article is featured and interviwed as a user by a well-known manufacuturer (Brian May Guitars), which I did think as a reliable coverage. I understand it's not editorial, but it's an established company and is more reliable than some newspapers and magazines?

Uisce81 (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately you've hit the nail on the head. Studio musicians and background producers/engineers are rarely in the limelight. If Caswell hasn't been widely noticed he's probably not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia entry, sorry. 'Brian May Guitars' are using Caswell to promote their product, so they have a vested interest in promoting him - for that reason they aren't an independent or reliable source. Sionk (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the explanation. I keep on looking for more sources meanwhile. Uisce81 (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

reference inside of an article?

I do not want to write a whole article about "Peter J. Tobin College of Business" which is part of St. John's University and also mentioned in the article about St. John's University just to get the name "Peter J. Tobin College of Business" to turn blue in the article I am writing about elsewhere. So what should I do, can I get the name of the school to reference better in the St. John's University article? so it turns blue there?King.parker3 (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "reference better". The purpose of the blue color in for example Massachusetts Institute of Technology is to let readers know they can click there to see a Wikipedia article about the subject. A red link like Peter J. Tobin College of Business indicates there is no article about the subject but maybe should be one in the future. If you don't think Peter J. Tobin College of Business should have its own article then simply omit the link brackets [[...]] as you did in [2]. If you want Wikipedia users to go to the article St. John's University (New York) when they enter "Peter J. Tobin College of Business" in the search box then you can make a redirect by creating a page at Peter J. Tobin College of Business with the code

#REDIRECT [[St. John's University (New York)]]

PrimeHunter (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You can also create a wiki-link (internal link) to a page, but have a different caption. For example, this link goes to Wikipedia's article, but it's caption is "this page". You can do this using the following code:

[[Name of real page|caption]]

–– Anonymouse321 (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

how do I get text to turn blue?

I am referencing another article in Wikipedia which contains the name "Peter J. Tobin College of Business" but that name does not show up in a Wikipedia search. How do I get that name to show up in a search?King.parker3 (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse, King.parker3! "Peter J. Tobin College of Business" is not a Wikipedia article, so it will not turn up blue; rather, it will turn up red. To make something turn up blue or red inside an article, you simply add two brackets to each side of what you want to reference. For example, if you want to reference the article "Gray wolf", you would put [[Gray wolf]] where you want it to be seen, and it would show up Gray wolf. If there is no Wikipedia article, it will show up red. ^{Brambleberry of RiverClan}_meow 23:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above. –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Twitter listed as Reference

I work as the Social Media Assistant for a celebrity. I have edited his bio and career info, but how do I replace the incorrect Twitter account which has been listed as a reference?LauraLeeT (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi LauraLeeT. Welcome to the Teahouse. Inline references are usually written where they are used and not where they are displayed. Click the "Edit" tab at top of the page to edit the whole page including the lead. Beware of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest if you want to edit the article further. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I simply corrected the career/bio section and list of current clients (citing outside sources for both). I am referring to the "introduction" at the very, very top. The incorrect Twitter is used there and I do not see a way to edit that sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraLeeT (talk • contribs) 18:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Laura! Welcome to Wikipedia. It looks like that link is being used as a source. Here is what I would do if I was you:

Click the edit button
Search for "gandydavid" (like you would on any website - on my Mac I click "command+F")
You should find it immediately in the wiki mark up - replace it with the proper Twitter name.
Click save!

I hope this helps. Just a few other tips - you're doing a great job at remaining neutral - I am really impressed, you're a rare gem in the world of marketers and social media folks who edit about their clients on Wikipedia :) One thing I would suggest: add a reliable source for the information about his love life, or just remove it. We can't have information that could be considered questionable on Wikipedia (anyone can say they dated anyone, but did they really?). Thanks for your contributions! SarahStierch (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

So, it is alright to remove things like the reference to a past girlfriend? He is dating someone else now but he would not want her listed here. However, I was not certain I should remove someone else's info (ie previous girlfriend). Thanks, I'll do that.

Absolutely. If it's unsourced - it can be removed. SarahStierch (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I searched the section per your instructions but the Twitter is not used in that section. I do not see where the Twitter acct is used as a reference anywhere other than the opening sentence--which cannot be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraLeeT (talk • contribs) 19:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Click the "Edit" tab at top of the page

If you tell us the correct Twitter then we can update it. To do it yourself: Click the tab saying "Edit" with capital 'E' at the top middle of the page, not any of the lower case "edit" links to the right of section headings. The "Edit" tab is between tabs saying "Read" and "View history". Then scroll down a little in the edit box until you get to the text [http://twitter.com/gandydavid David Gandy's Official Twitter]. Replace the url. The search method Sarah referred to is one built into browsers. In Windows browsers you can usually click Ctrl+f to search something on the page you are viewing. You can use this to search for "gandydavid" in the edit window after clicking the "Edit" tab. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

DONE--and thank you ALL very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraLeeT (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

As his social media employee, do make sure you read WP:Conflict of interest to ensure you don't run afoul of it. Also to better allow you to make smart edits and remove any poor ones, make sure you read WP:Biographies of living persons. Essentially the bar for BLPs dictates that absolutely everything be properly sourced to avoid libel. The good of that is that if someone pops in and makes some uncited allegation, you or anyone who sees it can and should remove it immediately. The flipside of this, however, is to bear in mind that regardless of your employment, neither you nor he own the article, and if someone posts a properly cited fact that you just don't happen to like, you cannot remove it. So if you're representing "Jane Doe" and someone posts a clearly cited New York Times article about her getting arrested for smuggling opium to Iceland, you can't make that go away no matter how much you'd like to.

The following article is more for Notable people themselves, but as a rep for such a person might be worth the read: Wikipedia:Notable person survival kit. Hope these guidelines might give you some good background for safe editing. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

New here but need help

Hello all,

I recently registered so I could update a page, which has worked very well.

But now I would like to create a new page for a couple of individuals, but my entry was deleted the other day, basically I had only written one line and wanted to return to it.

Is there a way I can save a draft, before putting it up "live"?

RomfordReject (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, RR. Welcome to the Teahouse. I saw that your question was answered in your talk page. Just click on the "My sandbox" at the very top of your page. Save your work there until you have a substantial article complete with in-line citations to reliable sources. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 14:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition, if you're writing biographies of people, make sure you read WP:Notability (people) to see the guidelines on the sourcing that such articles must have. Essentially, any article about a person must demonstrate that neutral, uninvolved, reliable sources have covered that person. If you want to write about "John Q. Smith" but all you can find about him is Facebook, blog posts, discussion forums, Twitter, etc., even if it's a lot of stuff in those places, then you just can't write a Wikipedia article about him at this time. If you're writing about someone who's still alive, make sure you read WP:Biographies of living persons. For BLPs the sourcing rules are held to the strictest standards to ensure no living person is being harmed by Wikipedia, so absolutely everything in a BLP has to be sourced.

I know it sounds like a lot of rules at first, but articles about people are tricky because a) we must avoid the risk of libeling living people b) we must have solid standards for when we write an article about a person, or Wikipedia would have millions of articles for average people on the street. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Alphonso Jackson

Please address my question regarding an anonymous editor, editing the Alphonso Jackson BLP?

The anonymous editor is including information regarding a government organization's personnel issue with a former employee, a Richard Mallory contributing the firing of Mallory to the individual Alphonso Jackson. The anon editor does not source the Richard Mallory allegations directly to Jackson, anon sources are dead links. In addition, anon removed photographs inclusive of Jackson. I am disturbed that this is a racial type attack because anon created a new category - minorities and government programs-seems racial type code. I am not in opposition of including more negative articles on Jackson. But, anon seems to want to edit the BLP with his sourced info only.Probably not true, but maybe anon is the disgruntled Former HUD employee. Once the Jackson BLP was vandalized with the "N" word written throughout the BLP. Wikipedia had to lock out edits.

Thank-you for your kind assistance TtelloucTtellouc (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ttellouc, an interesting question! You'll find there are often differences of opinion amongst editors on Wikipedia and these are often sorted out amicably. I can see, from the edit history of the article that IP 75 thinks you are being too pro-Jackson. However, I can also see from their comment "Hopefully this is some middle ground" that they are open to seeking a compromise. Often it is a good idea to engage the other editor in some sort of dialogue in this sort of situation - the Talk page of the article is the best place to start this. Another thing I would strongly advice you to do is explain your edits in the edit summary before you click on 'Save page'. This helps everyone know what you've changed (and why). Hope it works out! Sionk (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you, I am trying to reach a common ground with Anonymous. I do admit that I did not know how to use Wikipedia properly. I was attacked personally by anon, such as I should be ashamed of myself, i used promotional crap, was manupilative, sneaky, dishonest and self-righteous. He deleted my additions to his most recent edits, even though I did not delete the negative information he wrote and even used his citations with my additions. I tried to refer him to other governmental officials' BLPs in regards to the use of photographs. I was concerned there was a racial bias on his part because he just appeared out of nowhere with edits to Jackson and he is unregistered with Wiki. My concerns with racial bias had to do with his use of the category- Minorities and Government Programs. He insisted that my reaction to his motives were unfounded, I accept his response. In my opinion, he cites reference articles but includes a personal bias in his interpretation of the materials at times and writes as such. For example, the National Black Chamber of Commerce is listed on Wikipedia as a non-partisan, organization. Yet, because this organization streamed a conservative event on their site and was listed on a conservative blog, he identified NBCC as conservative. Frustrating, but I am trying to work with anon. TtelloucTtellouc (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-stop Vandalism on Sport Club Corinthians Paulista

help this page has been a constant victim of Vandalism from envious soccer hooligans. I have authored the majority of the page, & have provided sufficient citations 129 supporting my non-controversial fact on the history & culture of my club. I suspect the majority of the vandalism is coming from our rivals who are set to become relegated this season. Please is there anyway I can have a control over this page so that only wiki users, & not IP addresses may edit this page? I can't keep cleaning the site every hour 1dayFloripa (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi! The page has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users may edit it. In the future, you can request page protection at WP: RFPP. Cheers! --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to create an entry for a class project, and I don't know where to begin...

I need helpCaptainhastingsinusa (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I've posted on your Talk page a welcome message which has links to some basic introductions to wikipedia, as well as to the Article Wizard, which is a guided form you can use to start drafting an article. Those guidelines should be enough to get you started, though personally my main piece of advice would be Sources come first. Since everything on Wikipedia has to be WP:Verifiable, you don't want to sit down and start writing until you have, on hand, materials you can cite. If you start without any sources, just going off of "things I know in my head", you might find yourself unable to prove that things in the article are true, and the article could be chopped up or deleted. The best and strongest articles are where you can trace each statement back to a WP:Reliable source, like a respected magazine, newspaper, or book.

Can you tell us a little bit about what you'd like to write about, so we can give you some ideas as to how to attack the idea? And do yourself a favour and glance at the basic materials I posted on your Talk, just to get an idea of how Wikipedia works on a basic level. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Help with editing

I need help with talking to editors and to learn how to edit properly. I've edited Istanbul and Mexico City but editors seem not to like my contribuitions. I want to argue my views or to ask for help for them to give a proper editing. I've been accused by uploading low quality pictures...can someone help me? User:DIbra

moved this from the profiles heather walls (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to discuss any article, just look for the "Discussion/Talk" tab at the top of the page. Clicking that will take you to a page where you can see past discussions, and/or start a new one (click the "new section" button to start a new section, and newest questions go at the bottom of the page). MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dibra! Yup, what Matthew said is probably one of the best things - stop by the talk page and bring up your concerns there. Or, you can also ping the editors who are changing your edits on their talk page. Thanks for your efforts, and I hope communicating a bit more about your contributions - or the subjects that interest you - can help. Feel free to stop by if we can help you with something even more specific than this! SarahStierch (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

format?

How do I do cool formatting on my page? All I know is how to do standard text. Can I do color? Different font sizes? Pictures?

Thanks for the help

Prettybirdie (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Click here to go to a page that has some tips to get started. –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Prettybirdie! That is a great guide, that Anonymouse, shared with you. If you get overwhelmed or need any specific tips of the trade, just ask us. I'm sure some of the hosts here can give you some of their favorite tips :) I'm pretty simple with my design, but, others are more savvy. Welcome, and I can't wait to see what you do with your userpage! :) SarahStierch (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

edit a defaced article

hello , i recently looked up an article on the Black Panther Party, and right on the side where there logo is next to the entry:founded, there was a derogatory remark. when i looked in the editor, it does not appear. How do i go about removing this? My guess is that the image file for the logo may be the culprit. 2602:306:C84E:8B69:61BD:5E32:E079:1E93 (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. Great job at looking out for vandalism. It looks like a robot came along and cleaned it up. Wikipedians have created robots that track certain words (often vulgar/derogatory words) that are added to articles and the bot then cleans it up. So it looks like it's gone. This has a pretty lengthy break down about vandalism and getting involved in tracking it, if you're interested. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it :) SarahStierch (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is something odd going on here, I'm seeing the same as the original poster and am seeing the content before Cluebot's reversion - this is even after I've cleared my browser cache and I'm still seeing it when I use a different device to access the page altogether. NtheP (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Add now this is getting truly bizarre. I thought that reverting to the version prior to the vandalism might do the trick so I used rollback to do this. It appears to have sorted the problem but now my rollback edit doesn't appear in either the article history or my contributions? Baffling! NtheP (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That is very weird. I don't see a thing! SarahStierch (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If you don't appear to be seeing the current version of a page then try to bypass your cache and if that doesn't work then purge the page. NtheP, if you revert to a version identical to the current version then your edit will be a null edit which is not recorded, but it will purge the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments on first article, and thanks

Parable of the sunfish has been mouldering in my sandbox, so I've finally taken the plunge and posted it to mainspace. I've hung out here long enough to know that I probably should have gone through WP:AfC, but, well, I'm stubborn. Comments are welcome at Talk:Parable of the sunfish (even if the comment is "No, you really ought to have gone through WP:AfC...").

Many, many thanks to everyone here, both the folks who answered my questions and the people who asked good questions that prodded me to see if I could figure out the answers. The teahouse was a huge help in getting me comfortable editing, and I really appreciate that.

Best,

Garamond Lethe 14:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

PS: I used the "Ask a question" button and this landed at the bottom of the page. Did the convention change since I was here last? Garamond Lethe 14:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Moved to top. Garamond Lethe 16:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting piece; I was going to add a WP:WikiProject to it, but wasn't quite even sure what it would fall under. Maybe can you pick a few WProjects to link it to? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I would take a stab at adding categories first but something went terribly wrong and only the first one has a live link. I've read the faq to no avail. Could you take a look and let me know what I've done wrong? Thanks! Garamond Lethe 19:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

GL, welcome back, I've fixed all the categories. In all cases the issue was the same, you had capitalised a word that should have been lower case, for example you put Category:Literary Theory instead of Category:Literary theory hence all the redlinked categories. If you don't already use it I'd suggest you switch on Wikipedia HotCat via the gadgets tab in Special:Preferences, it's a really easy tool to use that allows easy addition of categories either singly or in batches and helps you to avoid this type of capitalisation issue as it previews the results for you. NtheP (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

NtheP: I could have stared at that all day and not figured that out. I'll definitely have a look at hotcat as well. MatthewVanitas, someone already beat me to it; looks like it's part of the Literature wikiproject now. Thanks to you both! Garamond Lethe 22:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

redirection of existing sites and alternative names

I have started to generate a wikipage "adhesion-GPCRs". This new page will completely encorpaorate an existing incomplete article "adhesion GPCRs". Can I simply delete the old article which is now completely redundunt. Also do I need to create pages for all alternative names and redirect them to the new site? I would like to redirect adhesion-GPCR, adhesion GPCR, adhesion GPCRs to the main site of "adhesion-GPCRs"Martstacey (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so your new article is Adhesion-GPCRs (it helps us a lot if you actually link the articles in question)? So far as creating redirects, WP:Redirect covers the basic, but yes, you can just type any alternate names/spellings into the search box, and then start a new "article" saying only #REDIRECT [[Adhesion-GPCRs]].

So redirect is easy. My concern, however, is that you say " This new page will completely encorpaorate an existing incomplete article". By that do you mean an article from your sandbox, or a full wiki article that you think wasn't written thoroughly enough, or what? I just want to make sure you didn't just blank an article entirely, because if you do that we lose track of its History. If there's a little article labele "Amce" and I'm writing a much more expansive "Acme Corporation" but will use most of "Acme" in it, the preferred way to do it is use the WP:MOVE function to move "Acme" to "Acme Corporation" and then build upon that stub. That way the History will still show the years that "Acme" developed before it was incorporated.

If you've already cut-pasted or wiped an existing article, which you really don't want to do, we can get an administrator to merge Histories through Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves, so let us know if we need to run that. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

First Article - Problems with Notability Earlier - Now Book is Published - Notable?

Hey everyone, I'm looking for a little feedback on an article I've been working on. It's my first, though I had tried earlier to get the same thing going but was told it wasn't notable. The mods had mentioned that I should wait until the book is published. The book got published and so I started anew! I'm just wondering what I need to work on, I'm thinking encyclopedic language might be an issue, and if this isn't the place to ask, a nudge in the right direction would be wonderful! Here's the link - [[3]]

Thanks! Kingofbreaker (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings KoB, the article is looking quite close to something publishable (though don't forget to fix the WP:link rot in your footnotes). Have you read Wikipedia:Notability (books) just to make sure you're checking off all the items on the list before publishing? You're definitely quite close if not already there. Also take a glance at WP:Fair use and recognise that you can upload one image of the book cover to Wikipedia (not to Wikimedia) to illustrate the infobox, as is common practise. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Salutations Matthew and thanks a ton, I'm gonna check on the rot, the book notability checks out, and I've got a picture for fair use so... Yeah I think I'm almost good to go! Thanks a ton sir. 00:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.13.85.85 (talk)

No worries, when it's ready to go you can just use the WP:Move button to move it from your sandbox to "article space". If your account hasn't been granted Move privileges yet, you can probably ask here, or pretty much any established editor, and they can Move it for you when it's ready. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, My page submission has been declined

Hi,

My page has been declined for the reason mentioning "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability" How can I know where my article is short of referencing or which part of my article neeeds more referencing. Your help is greatly appreciated.

Kind Rgds ASK

Rana 1480 (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You're referring to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stanhope Capital LLP? Taking a look at it, you've not a bad start, but you have some basic formatting issues: don't bold names except for the very first occurrence of the title term, use a bullet (type an "*") before each item in a list, need to use full WP:Citations instead of just titles, etc.

More importantly, you need to read Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) in detail. Right now you do have a few footnotes to evidence Notability (that is, to show that academic/media sources consider the subject worth writing about), but a lot of your sources are to the company itself, or other financial entities, who probably are not WP:Reliable sources in terms of providing neutral perspective. Also, though the article isn't terribly commercial, it does lean a bit towards advertising/promotion. For example, it's not clear why such a lengthy list of Publications are included for a financial firm.

Read the mentioned guideline documents (should be quick reads) and ponder those a bit. And also go through the article with an objective eye, and try to "catch" yourself saying anything that could be interpreted as advertising the company, or that sounds more like a company's "About Us" page than a neutral article. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and since this is your only page, and it's for a finance firm, might I guess you're involved with the firm somehow? That's not totally forbidden, but requires a lot of QC to maintain neutrality, so please ensure you read WP:Conflict of interest. Not a whole ton of folks making new articles about bankers, etc. that aren't somehow involved with the company. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)