Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 491

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 485 ← Archive 489 Archive 490 Archive 491 Archive 492 Archive 493 → Archive 495

Draft:Conference of Translation Services of European States

I reviewed Draft:Conference of Translation Services of European States and declined it (two months ago) as not showing independent reliable evidence of notability, because two of the four sources were not independent. An unregistered editor then asked at my talk page:

Hello Robert, I'm writing to you from the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Conference of Translation Services of European States (COTSOES), a network of government translation departments throughout Europe. We have previously submitted Wikipedia entries about our network in French, German and Portuguese and these have been accepted. Unfortunately, the English version has been rejected and yet it is a direct translation of the other language entries. This is a little bit bemusing and we would appreciate an explanation as to why this is the case and what exactly needs to be changed to have the English version approved. This is very important for us as English, French and German are the three official languages of the Conference. Many thanks for your help! Kind regards, Ruth Brown

I first will note that the Wikipedia in each language is independent of each other Wikipedia, and the English Wikipedia may have stricter standards than the other languages (possibly because it is larger and has become more selective). I will ask other editors here whether they think that this particular draft should be accepted with two independent sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

We require coverage in reliable, independent sources, Robert McClenon. The word "sources" is plural, and obviously six or eight are more persuasive than are two. But nowhere in our policies and guidelines, to the best of my knowledge, does it say that two independent, reliable sources are not enough. The AFC standard, as I recall, is that the article has a better than 50-50 chance of surviving a deletion debate. My hunch is that this draft should be approved, but you know much more about the inner workings of AFC than I do. The decision is yours. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I have not acted as an AfC reviewer, so also lack experience, but I note that large parts of the article are completely unsourced. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm willing to accept if the originator resubmits, based on the same article being present in other Wikipedias. I don't defend it if there is an AFD, but it looks like the sort of article for which AFD is unlikely. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like there may be a fair amount of independent coverage on Google Books, although almost all of the books/journals are in snippet view. See [1]. There's even more if you search by its German name. See [2]. I've also added an authority control to the draft with its VIAF number, WorldCat identity etc. I think it's unlikely that this would fail an AfD, or even be brought to one. Voceditenore (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
The French version at fr:Conférence des services de traduction des États européens is tagged for not being written in an encyclopedic style. It seems to me that all the versions suffer from WP:NOTDIR, though I'm unsure if that's a reason to decline the AfC. EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I have now resubmitted the entry and hope for the best! Kind regards, Ruth Brown193.188.156.131 (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Why there is a message on my talk page I can not edit?

Hi I was not following guidance when I started editing. I made many mistakes. The first one was that when I created my first wiki Ronda Peridotites, user Xx236 left a message on my page: What do you mean by Ronda peridotites? In my opinion that was too quick, I thought that it is clear from text I wrote. I was searching the references. I didnt know nothing about editing and I answered him on my talk page but not using : . I was just new with editing. The Article is accepted but his message is still on my talk page and I am not able to edit it. How I can change that? Thanks Obradow (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Look up at the top to edit the whole page, not just the individual sections. If you're on a computer, the button between the "Read" and "View history" buttons in the top right-hand side of the screen (near the search bar). If you're on the mobile site, click the pencil next to the star at the top right-hand side of the page. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you a lot!Obradow (talk) 09:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Disabled Wikipedia Needs Your Help With Creative Commons

Hello, I am having a lot of difficulty with adding Creative Commons tags to [3] I feel under pressure to make the page perfect while Wikipedia bots are programmed to overlook disability with respect to coding skill. The drop down menu is not available on edit and the designers of Wikipedia have discriminated against handicapped digital photographers. How can I make all the photos on this page Creative Commons which I have already declared, yet the automated bot is ruining things. Wikiworld2 (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you were struggling to link to the Wikipedia page to which you referred in your question. The way to do it is described at WP:Wikilink. [[Spencer Creek]] is rendered as Spencer Creek. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikiworld2, you need to specify which Creative Commons license you want to use. "Creative Commons" is not a license but a family of licenses. I see that you have previously marked your pictures as either {{cc-by-3.0}} or {{cc-by-4.0}}. Is either of these the license you want? One more question: did you take the photographs yourself? This will be marked as the source of the photos. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

This looks like a blog

Hi, I am not new here but I am not sure what is done about userspace pages which are written like blogs. I just came across User talk:58.7.203.59, which is written almost like a book-like blog. The user has not returned since 2012. Could someone please look into this and advise what can be done? Thanks, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

See Miscellany for deletion. This page does appear to violate Wikipedia policy because it isn't a draft article, isn't directly related to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a web host. Also see Criteria for speedy deletion. You might try tagging that page for U5, and, if that is declined, nominate it for miscellaneous deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Robert, I will go ahead and put the U5 tag and wait. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, someone has done it two minutes before. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion notice

I don't know why my Sugarcane in Queensland was nominated for Speedy Deletion Contest. But I want to give the reason for why shouldn't it be in this deletion contest.

Amiy Chakraborty (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears that your article has already been deleted several days ago. However, the comment on your talk page said that its content appeared largely to duplicate that of Sugarcane. If you think that sugarcane growing in Queensland is notable in its own right, that is, requiring a separate article, you should explain what are the differences, citing reliable sources, between sugarcane agriculture in Queensland and elsewhere in Australia and the world. I would also suggest that, if you think that a separate article is in order, you may submit it via Articles for Creation, and it will be reviewed, and possibly declined, rather than deleted. (With declined articles, we can read the article and the decline message when questions are asked.) Robert McClenon (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmmm! How?

Hi! I am Amy2563 or you can also call Amy. How can we really know that some of the articles or some contest types you arrange are not safe? And how can we know that all the articles can really be trusted? I wonder, if there are any marks which proves it that these can be trusted. I know, that these are too many questions but I am curious. I would be really thankful if any one of you can answer me!

Amy2563 (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Amy2563, welcome to the Teahouse. One of Wikipedia's core content policies is verifiability, meaning readers should be able to check that the information on Wikipedia is true. All content on Wikipedia that is likely to be challenged should have an inline citation to a reliable source next to it. Most citations on Wikipedia look like a superscript number like this: [1]. At the bottom of the article, there should be a "References" section that has a list of sources that should correspond to the citation numbers. When you are reading an article and you want to check that a piece of information is true, see if it has a citation nearby and read the source to see if it backs up the content. Many sources on Wikipedia come from online websites that you can access right away. If the information does not have a source, you can edit the article to add a {{citation needed}} tag next to it, or you can remove it, depending on the severity of the inaccuracy. Ultimately, we cannot guarantee that anything written on Wikipedia is true and accurate, so there is no official mark or anything that says an article is safe to use, say, in an academic/professional context. Before using any content on Wikipedia, always be sure to check that it is true by reading its citation. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Mz7! I want some articles which needs to be edited. I don't know where to find them. I would like to have some choices from you so that I can be a part of Wikipedian-mates who tries to make the articles better. Please send me some names of articles which needs to be rectified. My specialty lies in all rectification work but especially in references or citation. Please and please and please and please. I am really getting bored and I need some work to do. Give me some names please!

--Amy2563 (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you answer to my questions? --Amy2563 (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Amy2563 – The Teahouse is "staffed" by volunteer members so there may not always be an immediate response. A place to find more Wikipedia articles to be improved is at the Community portal, Help out section. The grid there shows nine different types of updates on a variety of articles, and that page is frequently updated. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
In addition, you might be interested in joining one of our numerous WikiProjects. A WikiProject is a group of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia. These groups often focus on a specific topic area (for example, women's history), a specific location or a specific kind of task (for example, checking newly created pages). The English Wikipedia currently has over 2,000 WikiProjects, each with varying levels of activity. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello Mz7! I really don't know the use of Sandbox. I would be very happy if you would help me with it its function and what use it is.

--Amy2563 (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Amy. A sandbox is a place to try things out, separate from the live space. In Wikipedia it can refer to two things:The Sandbox, which is a shared page for testing editing: nothing you put there lasts more than a day, as it is cleared out regularly. More commonly people mean a User sandbox: a page in your user space called (in your case) User:Amy2563/sandbox. Since it is in your user space, people will generally not interfere with anything you do in it (unless it is something grossly incompatible with Wikipedia's policies, such as a copyright violation, an attack page, or trying to use it as a web host or social media). It is one place you can work on an article and get it up to a suitable state to submit for review. In fact, you can have as many sandboxes as you like, called User:Amy2563/any title you like: the only point about the one called "sandbox" is that you have an automatic link to it at the top of each page.
An alternative to a user sandbox for developing new articles in Draft: space. It is similarly outside the main space, and nobody should interfere with your working there; but it is not so obviously tied to you. I recommend using the articles for creation process, which will create you a draft in Draft space by default. --ColinFine (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Where is the place to ask politely for reference?

there is opening line of article Adriatic plate which I have impression that it might be wrong. But it might be also true. Where is the place to ask politely for reference? Talk page of this article?Obradow (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Two possibilities: add a [citation needed] tag to the statement you consider doubtful; discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
thanks!Obradow (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Is tive a word in its' own right? That is the question.

is it far nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of some one elses misgotten fortunes?

Hola all. I can find no reference to the word tive. Does anyone know a definition?

answers much appreciated. Thank you for your time and interest.

We journey on.

AStoNeMaSoN (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

If it isn't recognised as a word I feel that it deserves to be given its' own independent status.

I do have a suggestion. any ideas welcome. AStoNeMaSoN (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with articles on well-documented topics. It is not concerned with undocumented words. Maproom (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


@AStoNeMaSoN: First, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Try Wiktionary or any other online or print dictionary.
Second, a great many English words end in "tive". Assuming you saw it somewhere, it's probably the result of a typo or other kind of error, possibly one that inserted a space or changed a letter to a space: e.g., informa tive, conserv tive.
Third, if you're trying to coin a new word, take it someplace else. --Thnidu (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


Thank you. AStoNeMaSoN (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

review of page

Thanks for the comments - but i am struggling to see how a story about the formation, the journey of a founder is any different to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung it talks about dates founded, the transition from engineering to products - the team, is the team and the point of the team is the experience. i can't tell a story without referencing the backgrounds - or it would be like "little red riding hood, went..." can't talk about the rest of the story? each reference is now amended to be from an external source. So please can someone help amend the story. there is no product or service for sale here. its factual about a transition into an entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivertu (talk • contribs) 20:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

i recently submitted a page, i had it rejected due to references. i have since amended them and added more detail from external sources. is there a way to review it again or do i just re submit? (Ivertu (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It would have helped if you had provided a link to the draft. It appears that it is now Draft:Salvador Partners. I don't understand the question. You did resubmit it, and it has been declined again, because it reads like an advertisement and is promotional rather than neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Apriva

I reviewed Draft:Apriva and declined it as not meeting corporate notability. I also noted that there had been a deletion discussion, and that it should not be accepted unless it was an improvement on the deleted article. Of course, I can’t see the deleted article without admin glasses. User:Shainar then asked me:

Hi Robert, Thanks so much for your feedback on the article I submitted on Apriva. Can you help me better understand what I can improve by answering the following questions? 1. Specifically, how can I better show the subject's notability? 2. What defines "significant coverage"? 3. Were there specific sources that aren't seen as reliable/independent, or weren't referenced properly? Basically, I'm trying to figure out if I can make little edits to get the article be approved or if the overall subject is not deemed worthy of inclusion at this time. Thanks!

I can’t be optimistic about an article that was previously deleted, and which I declined because most of the references were either to its own web site or were just press releases. Do other experienced editors care to comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Shainar asked me:

'Thank you! I noticed one of your comments was, "I can’t be optimistic about an article that was previously deleted, and which I declined because most of the references were either to its own web site or were just press releases." For what it's worth, I had no involvement in the creation or deletion of the previous article, and the one I submitted was a new version, not a re-write of the old version.'

I understand. I know that you didn't write the original article and so can't see it. However, when an article has been deleted, usually, in the deletion discussion, there was a reasonable effort made to determine whether sources exist to establish notability. Since an effort was made to locate sources to see if the article could be made notable, and the effort was not successful, I am not optimistic that new sources now exist and the company has now become notable. If an article has already once been deleted, it usually means that the subject has been found not to be notable. That is what I meant. Do other editors care to comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I don’t know much about draft review, but wouldn’t Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation be a more appropriate venue? Also, just a tip, but using {{blockquote}} or {{talkquote}} helps to differentiate your own text from quoted text. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Robert and Teahouse editors, any other feedback on my questions above or suggestions on how I can adjust this Apriva draft to increase the likelihood it will be approved? Thanks for your help. Shainar (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Do hoaxes get deleted?

I like hank the cowdog. a 5th episode will air 6/4/16. My files have gotten deleted. `Triana2 (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are asking a serious question, the answer is: Yes. Hoaxes get deleted, and editors who create hoax pages get blocked. However, it appears at this point that your files have not been deleted. They were nominated for speedy deletion, but the deletion was declined for technical policy reasons. I have proposed them for deletion. Are you saying that they are hoaxes, or are you just asking a question, or what? If you think that the articles you have created can pass notability, you have seven days in which to improve them. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
It appears that Hank the Cowdog is a real series and that it has a cartoon. Right now it seems more appropriate to redirect Hank the cowdog (tv series) to the original article unless/until the series becomes more notable. I think we're dealing with a younger user who didn't quite understand what "hoax" meant. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what did they mean by "hoax"? Does it have a slang meaning that wasn't known in the 1960s and 1970s (when newspaper headlines used "Hoax" as short for "Con game"? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Since the user created articles that were not referenced and is sort of referring to those, I suspect they thought that hoaxes are just articles without references. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

More specifics on achieving "neutral tone"

Having trouble getting specifics from reviewers on how this article is not written in a "neutral tone." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Credible

There are no opinions expressed as facts in this article. There are no "seriously contested assertions" stated as facts. The article employs "nonjudgmental language" and it is written in a tone that "neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

There are no unsupported attributions, or adjectives ("peacock terms"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Puffery

The article includes references to "a range of independent, reliable, published sources" including Tech Crunch, Forbes, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, CNBC, and Fortune. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Credible#References

This is a legitimate article about a commercial entity, written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia editors are instructed that "a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles

There appears to be a double standard being applied to this post. Wikipedia editors routinely approve similar articles, including posts about companies that are in the same line of business -- CommonBond, SoFi, and Earnest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CommonBond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoFi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnest_(company)

The reviewers who have rejected this article have provided no specific guidance on why this article is not neutral in tone. They appear to be making a subjective judgment call that Wikipedia users should have access to information about companies like CommonBond, SoFi and Earnest, but not the company that is the subject of this submission, Credible.

162.245.21.61 (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Before commenting on the details, I will make a few brief comments. First, read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because we have inadequately sourced articles isn't a reason to keep an inadequately sourced article. Second, please log in before posting. It appears that you have made most of the edits under a registered name but some logged out. Please log in and use your registered name. It has privileges. Third, don't resubmit a draft that has been declined without making improvements to it. That annoys the reviewers and doesn't increase the likelihood of getting accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
The article was resubmitted because the editor who rejected it, Onel5969, is now "semi-retired." Nobody has explained exactly where they see non-neutral language in the article, or why Tech Crunch, Forbes, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, CNBC, and Fortune are not reliable sources. This makes it difficult to edit the article. There seems to be no interest in collaborating to improve the article, which seems to conflict with the spirit of the Neutral point of view/FAQ, which states: "While the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time. Obvious exceptions are articles about living people or clear vandalism, but generally there is no need for text to meet the highest standards of neutrality today if there's a reasonable chance of getting there.

Also, determining whether a claim is true or useful, particularly when few people know about the topic, often requires a more involved process to get the opinions of other editors. It's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page or at a relevant WikiProject. Discussing contentious claims helps editors to evaluate their accuracy and often leads to better sourcing and clearer phrasing." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete 162.245.21.61 (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is some specific advice about your draft, 162.245.21.61 Three of your references are to websites that host press releases, namely Business Wire and PR Newswire. Press releases are not independent, reliable sources, and experienced Wikipedia editors recognize that instantly. Many will be irritated at attempts to use such websites, so remove them and everything cited to them. Then, I noticed that the company's own website is used as a reference three times. A company website is not independent and therefore contributes nothing to notability. If notability is established through other sources, then the company website can be used only for utterly non-controversial facts like the CEO's name and the headquarters city. Cut way back on use of the company website. YouTube is rarely a reliable source, unless it is the official channel of an established news source. Remove that source. I started looking at references to known reliable sources. The Washington Post reference mentions the company in passing, and then quotes the CEO. That is not significant coverage, contributes nothing to notability, and should be eliminated. Then, I looked at the Bloomberg reference, and got a HTTP 404 error message. That does not inspire confidence. On to US News and World Report, where I found a fleeting mention of the company and a few quotes from the CEO. That reference contributes nothing to notability and is therefore worthless. Now to the CNBC source, where I got a "page not found" error. Now, to Marketwatch, which is a passing mention and a quote from the CEO. That reference is worthless for establishing notability. Now to Fortune, which summarizes some research by Credible, but says nothing about the company itself. That reference is worthless for establishing notability. Then there are an assortment of sources saying that the company raised various amounts of money from investors. This is routine, run-of-the-mill coverage for start-ups and does not establish notability. It is your job to establish notability and so far, you have not done so. Your references are sup-par, to be frank.
You are dealing with volunteers who are reviewing your article out of the goodness of their hearts. I have spent far more time looking at your draft than the average backloggd AFC reviewer would spend. Many of these people have hundreds or thousands of times more experience editing Wikipedia than you do, and yet you presume to try to educate them on our policies and guidelines, when they know them far better than you do. You have failed to provide the type of referencing that we expect for an article about a tech company. Pointing out that we have other mediocre articles is not a persuasive reason to accept another mediocre article. Experienced editors here work every day to either improve or delete other mediocre articles and are completely unimpressed by that argument, which we have heard hundreds of times before. It will not fly.
So, go back to the drawing board, and write a draft summarizing only the significant coverage that reliable, independent sources devote to this company as a business venture, not to its CEO as a quotable expert.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Jeff.pramanik. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback Cullen328. This is the kind of concrete guidance I was seeking. I appreciate the time that went into that. There are more than 20 million Americans who are repaying more than $1 trillion in student loan debt so I believe this is a topic worthy of your time.

I have removed the references to websites that host press releases, and the reference to the YouTube video, as you sugggested. I have fixed the links to the Bloomberg and CNBC articles.

Here are my thoughts on some of your other suggestions.

References to company website. The references to the company website were not intended to establish notability, but to establish "utterly non-controversial facts" -- namely, the lenders who offer services through Credible.

I would like to keep the references to the Washington Post, Marketwatch, and Fortune because there is currently a national discussions going on about the difficulties millions face in repaying their student loan debt, and strategies for coping with that debt. Credible is helping inform that debate.

I have added a reference to an April 2016 NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt report featuring Credible, which explained how parents can refinance student loans they took out to help pay for their children's college at lower rates.

I have resubmitted the article.

162.245.21.61 (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You said: I would like to keep the references to the Washington Post, Marketwatch, and Fortune because there is currently a national discussions going on about the difficulties millions face in repaying their student loan debt, and strategies for coping with that debt. Credible is helping inform that debate. I have not seen the draft, but this sounds like a reason to possibly mention the company or cite its employees in an article about student debt, and not a reason to have an article dedicated to the company. Also, I think it should be said that while Wikipedia does offer many kinds of information, it is not a how-to guide, and it should not advocate for any kind of solution to any given problem.
By the way, you can indent your entire reply by beginning each line with a colon with no blank lines between. See WP:THREAD for more. Indenting only the first line makes the rest of the reply seem like a new comment. Hope that helps! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit button is Gone

Hi all

I'm trying to create a Bio page. It's my first time here. I was reviewed and declined because the refs were done wrong (my fault). They are corrected now by a very helpful wiki author. I'd like to add more refs now that I see how its done and also some images. The "edit button" on the article is gone. gone. There is only one on the "references" section.

Any ideas?

Thank you!

Jyprod (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jyprod. I assume that you are talking about Draft:Janni Younge. When I look at that draft, there is an edit button at the very top of the page, which allows editing of the entire draft. Please scroll to the very top of the draft. If you do not see that option, then you may have a browser problem. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
This must be about Draft:Janni_Younge. As I see it, there is an Edit tab at the top of the page which lets you edit the whole article, and section edit links for both the "References" and the "External links" sections. Incidentally – your username suggests a connection between you and the subject of the article. What is the relationship between you? Maproom (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both. Janni Younge is my wife and I am doing her bio page for her.

Oh dear I've been rejected again because I copied the basics from her website, hoping for a shortcut.

Jyprod (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Jyprod writing an article about your wife is a clear conflict of interest. Please read and follow the guidance at WP:COI, particularly declaring your {{connected contributor}} status on the talk page (You may have done that - but as the article has been deleted I cannot tell) - Arjayay (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok - thanks. I can see how it would seem that way, but I am also someone who knows her career really well, having lived through it all. Her bio page should really exist, she is already referenced in another few articles. How can I get it done? Jyprod (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jyprod: Sorry, but you can't. You're too close to her to escape Conflict of interest. Read the pages Arjayay mentioned in their 17:39, 2 June 2016 comment.
What you can do is find unconnected people who are interested in the topics of the pages where she is mentioned, e.g., by reading those articles' Talk pages and looking down their history pages to see who's made significant edits to the article. --Thnidu (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that suggestion Thnidu Jyprod (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Jyprod, you say that you know her career really well, which is obviously helpful, but please note that Wikipedia articles can't be written based on personal experience or private knowledge - they have to be based on reliable, published sources. Your "insider" knowledge would therefore be of only limited use. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Larry - but I am not planning on writing about items that are 'private knowledge', it's more about that I'm someone able to connect the dots of the various published, citable sources on her.

Jyprod (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Jyprod. Many new users with close connections with the subjects they wish to write about don't understand this, so I'm glad that you do. If you are determined to go ahead with writing the article, then I strongly suggest creating it as a draft via Wikipedia:Articles for creation, and of course declaring your CoI as outlined at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Declaring an interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok - I will try that. Thanks again for your help Larry. May I ask a question? - there are two pages on wiki that ref her, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Arts_Festival) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Trap_National_Park_for_the_Performing_Arts) can I link to her name in those pages in my draft?Jyprod (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
You can link to those articles in the draft, if relevant, and you can link to the new article from those existing articles if and when your draft is accepted, Jyprod. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jyprod: Since you are intimately familiar with her career and life, your best course may be to write and publish your own biography of her, without WIkipedia. That biography would then be a reliable source we could use for the article. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Citing same source with different access dates

In editing Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories § Harassment by conspiracy theorists, I found that two refs in the second paragraph of the section were identical except for the access date. I put one of them into {{Cite news}} format as <ref name=Inquisitr>, but I couldn't figure out how to specify a different access date for the other one, which was now just <ref name=Inquisitr />. I put it into an HTML comment just after the ref, but how should it be done? Please {{ping}} me in replying. --Thnidu (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Thnidu: You don't need to worry about retaining the old accessdate. The important thing is that the source still serves to verify both statements. If that's true, then the latest accessdate is fine to use. If the source has changed, then Wikipedia should also be updated to reflect what the source now says, and the accessdate should be changed. For example, the Rotten Tomatoes score for a film might change from a 100% rating to an 80% rating when a new negative review is cataloged by their site. So, I'd change the Wikipedia article to reflect this and update the accessdate. If some other citation was using the Rotten Tomatoes citation for the film's runtime or release date (which presumably stayed the same), it'd be fine. I wouldn't have to track the various accessdates. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Salvador Partners

I reviewed Draft: Salvador Partners twice, and declined it both times on grounds that it was promotional in language. It had been declined once before for notability reasons. User:Ivertu then posted to my talk page:

Hi, i believe i have been able to amend the wording as per your comments - my apologies, i have tried to replicate the style of submission from the stories from well known enties such as Samsung. i re read after your comments and, i hope made all of the relevant changes necessary. Kind Regards Lisa

It doesn’t appear to me that Ivertu has addressed my comments before resubmitting. The draft is still mostly about the management team and not about how the company is notable. I am not declining the submission a third time because I am asking for advice here. Can some other experienced editor please review and comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If Ivertu wants this article approved, then it needs a complete and total rewrite. That mostly unreferenced list of company executives may be fine for the company website but not for a neutral, properly referenced encyclopedia article. Get rid of it. The source that provides the best overview of the company is a reprint of a press release, which is disturbing. Start with assembling a list of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and then neutrally summarize what those reliable sources say. If such coverage does not exist, then neither should a Wikipedia article about this company. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

How to request an article?

Suppose i do-not know well about a topic... so i think i should not create a new page on that... but i think it should be on wikipedia. Then how could i request for that article to the experts?

these are my 3 questions on editing today. thanks. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC) Copied and pasted the conversation in my talk page. Thanks.

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, RIT RAJARSHI. Please post your article idea at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Of course, volunteers monitor that page, and it may take a while for someone to get around to it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Could I upload image taken from a public museum?

Could I upload image taken from a public museum? Would it hamper the copyright? ( And what for a zoological garden,or a botanical etc )?

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RIT RAJARSHI. You have asked an excellent question, and if you love visiting museums as much as I do, then I encourage you to upload as many museum photos as possible. What follows is a brief summary of a very complex area. First of all, please comply with the museum's photography policy for each specific exhibit. It is common that a museum may allow photography of its permanent collection but maybe not for some of its temporary exhibits. In general, photos of zoological or botanical topics are copyright free and OK to upload. The same applies to ancient and Renaissance art, and archeological objects. These items are not covered by copyright. On the other hand, contemporary art published and displayed since 1923 is usually copyrighted and cannot be uploaded in general. But great photography and public art paid for by the U.S. government is usually copyright free, which includes some (but not all) classic photos by Dorothea Lange and Ansel Adams. The bottom line is that the museum object that you photograph may (or may not) have an underlying copyright. You need to study the matter, verify the copyright status of each object you photograph, and be sure that you are not uploading any copyright violations. Feel free to ask more specific questions about particular objects here at the Teahouse at any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC) @Cullen328: Thanks for your appreciation to the questions.

How can I create an article without violating the copyright notice?

My question is how could I create articles without speedy deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by SabirTech (talk • contribs) 10:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, SabirTech. The general answer to your last question is, By following Wikipedia policies. It's a bit difficult to be more specific without knowing what you have tried. But in response to the header, and to the information on your User and User talk pages, I'd say:
Do not copy copyright material into a Wikipedia article, even if you hold the copyright yourself. Articles should be based on publihsed sources, but should be rewritten in different words to avoid infringing copyright.
You are strongly discouraged from writing articles about your own projects. Please see COI.
Wikipedia has almost no interest in what the subject of an article, or their friends, relatives, employees, agents, or associates say about them. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about the subject. If people who have no connection with your company have published articles about the company, then Wikipedia may have an article on the company. The article should be based entirely on what those unconnected people have published.
Please read your first article for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Alternate account

On Wikipedia, I understand that sock puppetry should be taken very seriously and abide by WP:SOCK#LEGIT reasons if you want an alternate account. As such I want to start up an alternate account for the purpose of humorous userpage/security, just in case I'm asking this in advance if those reasons I've stated are ok to use an alternate account. Also can you have a completely different username rather than User (alt) or User (public) as long as you acknowledge that it is the alternate account of said user? Any answer will be great! Thank you in advance! Adog104 Talk to me 23:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "humorous userpage/security"? I can't answer your question because I don't understand it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
There are a few alternate accounts used sparingly for humorous purposes by respected long term editors. I recall one such account producing a humorous voter's guide to ArbCom elections. Alternate accounts for security purposes are more common, and may be used by editors who travel frequently and must use insecure internet connections often. I am unaware of accounts combining both functions and suspect that opposition might result. Mixing a serious and a humorous purpose is tricky. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@Adog104: Although it is recommended that your accounts have similar usernames, you should be fine using a completely different username for your alternative account as long as you acknowledge it somewhere, preferably with links (or with userboxes) on both user pages if the account isn't for privacy reasons. (I have an alternative account named "BrassicaSolanum", and I haven't had any problems with it yet...) CabbagePotato (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@CabbagePotato: // @Cullen328: // @Robert McClenon:; Thank you to all of you who answered my question. Also to Cullen and Robert sorry I didn't clarify enough, I meant I was going to use the user page of the alternate account in a humorous/joking way (sort of like what my user page is now, not a totally serious interface, but a serious account) and at the same time use it as a public editor for when I go editing mobile, public computers, public wifi, etc. (Note- the alt wouldn't be a good hand-bad hand thing or used jokingly, the alt would be with all good intentions and apply to WP:SOCK#LEGIT). Thank you all again for the answers! Adog104 Talk to me 15:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Author or blog?

I recently created an entry on the author of a viral blog from 2015, which was denied. Should I change my approach to the blog itself since that is the cultural reference people are more familiar with? SaladDayz (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Your draft was declined because you didn't provide independent reliable sources not associated with the author or the blog to attest to the notability of the author or the blog. You would almost certainly have also been declined if you had submitted an inadequately referenced article about the blog. Also, when you ask for help here, it helps you to provide a link to the page in question. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The draft is Draft: Jason Soroski. As I noted, the one reference that you provided wouldn't substantiate either Soroski or the blog. If the blog did "go viral", there may have been discussions of it in reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Found the article back from a dead link but can't figure out how to change it

Hi,

I just can't figure out how to insert a dead link to an article that is still on the same external site but not the same url. The page in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_Pacific and the link I want to adjust is one of the reference section (South Pacific Leads the World in Obesity).

When I want to edit I see this:

References


Tried to figure it out by myself but couldn't and need some help.

Thanks!

Semelius Semelius (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Semelius. I'm not sure quite what you're asking (why would you want to insert a dead link?) but I think the point you need to understand is that references are not defined in the 'References' section (so there's no point in giving us that section). References are defined where they are used, in the text, and that is where you need to change any URL in a referenfe. See referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi ColineFine,

Thanks for your reply. I don't want to insert a dead link but fix it. The link points to a page that no longer exists because they moved the article to another page/url. So the article is still on their site but with another url. I would like to replace the dead url with the good one. Semelius (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something here, but you can simply copy and paste the new url over the old one. Would be worth checking other details (Title, Accessdate) are correct. DrChrissy (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Semelius. I believe you are attempting to fix the dead link reference by editing the 'References' section. In fact you've added a revised cite web there. Instead you should edit the entire article (click 'Edit' at the top of the page - to the right of 'Read') and change the inline cite web that sits just after "...fruit and vegetables." Then scroll down and remove the reference you added in "References" section. It is a bit puzzling how the references work until you've played with it awhile. Gab4gab (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Articles for creation backlog

Hi, just a heads up that the AfC pending submissions has been getting a bit backlogged the last couple of weeks after being kept under control for quite a while by the sterling effort of others (and a tiny bit of input from myself). So if any experienced editors who do not check AFC normally but have the experience could help knock a couple off the 2,744 currently pending that would be great. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, how do you start? 😉 I have been doing a little work on AfC, but instead of reviewing articles, I've been trying to get Draft:Big Star (horse) up to snuff. The horse is definitely notable, was part of the gold medal show jumping team at the London Olympics, but the creator seems to speak English as a second language. They do a good job on referencing and stuff, though.
I may try to review a different, non-horse draft, though. If I screw up, just tell me. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Right now I'm just going through the submissions and making minor copy edits (bolding titles, put refs outside punctuation, etc.) I don't know about running a script because it always uses a lot of data and I only have a limited amount on my phone. If copyedits, help, though, I can make plenty! White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Template visibility and header color

I'm trying to get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Lydia_Canaan to look and function like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Paul_McCartney_main but not only is the template info not visible on the Lydia Canaan page (just the header, but not the info as shown on template page itself), the header is also a violet color rather than the #F7E98E that the example I'm working with appears as (and it's important because want it to match the #F7E98E of the info box and other charts and tables). Can someone please help? Thank you in advance! WikiEditorial101 (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

* Update: A null edit purged the article and made the template visible. But I still need help with the color. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi WikiEditorial101! The documentation for {{Navbox musical artist}} lists a few different possible parameters that can be entered into the background field; each gives the navbox a different colour. I've changed it from singer_songwriter to solo_singer, which should return the desired colour. Thanks! /wiae /tlk 03:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC
Thank you so much! WikiEditorial101 (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC))

editors, admins, everyone has to change.

I am writing this as I feel this issue is important. I do not spend time on wiki looking for chat areas and such, which is why I am not familiar with all the codes and such that is used and I do not know where the appropriate place is to post this. Most of my time is spent doing research and writing articles. In saying this, I recently posted out a new article, in no time I was, in my opinion bullied by an editor or admin whichever they are and this has happened before to me by the same person. I had six citations and was told I did not have enough and the article was not written the way they felt it should be. I am a ‘double’ doctorate degree researcher, I am sought after to do research and write for encyclopedia’s and universities. I do my work to the best of my ability, in many cases once I have the article posted I then go back and start re-editing, writing and changing to get it how it should be or better done if need be. When I write an article it will be finished from start to finish including the image. One article would take me 10 months to locate the photographer. On three articles I am trying to fix now, that I am not the creator of, I have had to contact Worldcat identifier as the information is so messed up it is not even funny. Worldcat has been fantastic in working with me to get these errors corrected. On one of those articles facebook has linked the wiki account to a facebook account to a band with the same name, I am now attempting to get facebook to fix that error. I am curious as to why anyone would post an article they did not do all the work for? I do not understand, why it would be expected someone else to come along and do the work? I will say I am frustrated at editors I have found are doing this that post out articles (I am now doing the research for two started by the same person) and they do not complete the article or any of the research? Please explain this to me? Most of these articles come onto the delete list or serious issues list and it is expected someone else clean it up and do the work? Why is this? All over wiki I have seen comments of how to handle harassment, I am unsure this is harassment I feel its bullying. Then there are those that are saying they are being abused, in most cases of human nature if it is dished out you will receive it in kind. Maybe its time everyone on wiki etc,… start with a different approach and ask an editor of an article ‘why they did such’ instead of jumping all over them or having it come across this way. I feel wiki has reached the point that they are going to have to consider outside people not being allowed to work on articles. It’s going to have to be the actual people that join wiki and do the research and it’s time articles are locked (all) of them so they cannot be tampered with after completion. This is the way it is in any other encyclopedia I have worked on, outside people are not permitted to touch let alone alter information in articles. I have reached my limit, once I fix up these two last articles …. I am gone from wiki, that’s it for me.T Heart (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, T Heart, but I'm not going to read a wall of text to find out in detail what you're saying. I get the feeling that what you're saying is "Wikipedia isn't like other places and it should be". I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is what it is, and indeed it isn't like many (or any) other places. Everybody is welcome to contribute here, be they a thirteen year old schoolchild or a multiple PhD: in either case, they need to learn how it works, and work accordingly.
Of course Wikipedia isn't perfect, either in content or in how it works, and contributions to either are welcome. But in either case, to make a change you need to achieve consensus. If you make a change to the content, and nobody disagrees, you have achieved consensus. If another editor does disagree, then it is up to the two (or more) editors involved to discuss it and reach consensus as to what should be there (we have procedures such as WP:BRD and WP:DR to help this. If you want a change in the way that Wikipedia works, the best place to make a suggestion is one or other department of the Village pump; but in order to make a change you will need to enrol other editors into supporting you, which is best done by making constructive suggestions supported by arguments, not by complaining that you don't like the way it is. But you might find it useful to look at perennial proposals first. (I'm sorry if I'm misrepresenting you, but as I said, I don't fancy reading such a screed). --ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Hi T Heart, sorry to hear your frustrated and yes bullying should never be tolerated. I assume your talking about Ted Leonard (musician) as its your most recent created article. However I'm confused as it has had hardly any other input by any others: an IP6 editor changed a category (I would have probably added it); a bot made some minor mark-up changes; and Tony1 made some minor stylistic changes I assume per WP:MOS and added a {{tone}}. If your upset by this little amount of collaboration then Wikipedia then maybe its just not for you as Wikipedia is fundamentally about collaboration. Also I'm surprised as although you have not touched many articles (20 from the stats) you've clearly made more edits to other articles than has been done to this one. I can only see you corresponded with Tony1 on their talk page at User_talk:Tony1#RE:_ted_leonard, and they responded to your question with the reason it was tagged in what appears to me to be a non-bulling or threatening manner. You responded in a slightly aggressive manner "how about cutting me some slack... ", and there response was also not bullying in any way. If you want to work on articles without interruption you should not work on them in the main space that is public and searchable, to work in the way you wish to I would suggest sub-pages of you user area until ready to 'publish' (e.g. User:Imasku/Ted Leonard (musician)). Also you can indicate your ongoing development by using Template:New page by adding {{New page}} to the top of the article. From looking at your articles you are doing good work, but if you don't want people editing 'your' articles then Wikipedia is not going to be for you - however from what I've seen of standard publishing, outside of blogs, writers would expect much more copy-editing than you had on this article. In summary in my opinion what you experienced was not bullying but a minor amount of copy-editing and feedback on the expected 'tone' here on Wikipedia. I hope you choose to stay as we need good content creators, and encourage you to create in your own area until happy to publish (move to the main space) and use {{New page}} to ward of others until ready. Wikipedia does have a bullying issue, but I would call this polite, in comparison I've woken to notification of hundreds of insulting messages across my pages and articles with language so insulting the admins had to permanently redact them from public view. I hope you will re-review Tony1's action of tagging as just the Wikipedia collaborative process and their comments as non-bullying, and that you choose to stay. If I've missed some other interactions please link so we can comment more specifically. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
With regard to locking articles, peer-review and experts, I don't know if you have read the history of Wikipedia? It "began as a complementary project for Nupedia, a free online English-language encyclopedia project whose articles were written by experts and reviewed under a formal process". Nupedia started in March 9, 2000, Wikipedia on January 15, 2001 "Of the Nupedia articles that completed the review process, only two did so after 2001" and on September 26, 2003 Nupedia became "one of the greatest defunct websites [as] the strict control had limited the posting of articles."
Having evolved out of a strict system, which failed shortly after spawning Wikipedia, I cannot envisage much support for returning to that system. - Arjayay (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, T Heart. Just a tangential comment. You write of "completion" of an article. I have never created an article I would regard as "complete", and am always pleased when other editors improve my work. But I haven't created many articles, more of my time is spent trying to improve the work of others. I take a scrappy, piecemeal attitude to editing, and the way Wikipedia works suits editors with that attitude. I can understand that someone who prefers to work single-handed on something until it is incapable of further improvement will be uncomfortable here. Maproom (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I find it interesting all you did was hit Ted Leonard's article... I have 3 here. If Citations are not used how did this article ever get a good article award.... As I mentioned maybe it is time for wiki to get on one page for creating articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Black. The places you asked for citations in Leonard's article they were already there, now they are there double which does not make sense to me, including the term so called puffery. I will now assume this above article will be losing it's good article award or be drastically changed to be acceptable. I have found way too many double standards on wiki... just depends whom you are in the article and your importance. I am through wishing everyone the best. Good Luck.T Heart (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I see that User:Imasku is right about Ted Leonard (musician) in one particular. There is a problem with duplicate references. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Double standards? We are all volunteers, and all human. You should not expect consistency. Maproom (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
That's a catch 22, if I should not expect consistency, neither should anyone else (editors) and that is the position I was placed in... again wiki needs to get on one page for creating articles and not be decided by whom you are in importance. (Use of the word Citations which I was told we use References here and that of puffery). Again reference to the good article award for this article on this person, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Black. Duplicate references, I was asked to re-add them again, so I did as asked, which tells me the editors asking did not even check to see if they were already there in the first place. I have worked on my last here, good luckT Heart (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

How to post a writer biography

My article on Dwight Russel Micnhimer has been slated for speedy deletion citing that information already exists on wikipedia. but when i click on the existing information, it leads me to the article i have posted. Please help Godessofsmallthings (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have moved the article to a draft, at Draft:Dwight_Russel_Micnhimer, to save it from deletion. At present it has no internal references to establish Micnhimer's notability. It does have some "references", but these are not cited anywhere in the article – I have not checked them to see if they meet Wikipedia's standards of independence and reliability. Maproom (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_491&oldid=724419200"