Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 589

Archive 585

←

Archive 587

Archive 588

Archive 589

Archive 590

Archive 591

→

Archive 595

Why my post is not being published

hi everyone... i am little confused as because i have tried 2-3 times to publish this article which i think is worth of sharing on this platform, but it has been a tough ride to publish it. I would like to ask help from any of you experienced writer to help me with it. The page name is draft:haris umar khan(Ikdanish (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Ikdanish. Your draft has not been published because the sources you have included do not demonstrate that the subject meets our guidelines for notability. Normally, this is done by showing that the individual has received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. A sources like this one appears to be trivial passing mention of the individual, and so does not help to establish notability. Others, like Movie Buff and IMDB, are user generated and so do NOT count as reliable for the purposes of Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 13:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I asked User:Timothyjosephwood to please look at this response because it's not correct, but he won't be around much for the next few weeks. I made a correction hoping I got it right.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Protected Article

WP:SOCK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, Im AwesomePatrol Why I can't edit the protected article here? Im a new user btw. AwesomePatrol (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Welcome to the Teahouse. When your account has been registered for 4 days you will be autoconfirmed and the you'll be able to edit semi-protected articles. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Hello, AwesomePatrol. Article's are protected because they have been the subject of disruptive editing, such as vandalism, edit warring or repeated violations of core content policies. Please read Wikipedia:Protection policy for complete details. You can leave a suggested change on an article's talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to Konica Mionlta Inc Wikipedia page

I added proposed changes to the Konica Minolta Inc talk page on 3/2. No one has responded to me, should I expect a response? How long will it take to see a response? I was tasked with adding a section: Konica Minolta Healthcare America's to the Konica Minolta Inc Wikipedia page, I tried editing myself and adding text and it was deleted, I was told to propose a change instead. Just wondering how long it will take to see a response to my proposed change.

Thanks, Lauren LGiordano (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

LGiordano, it might take as long as another week to get a response on the talk page. Alternately, you can look at the page history (by using the history tab at the top) and send a talk message to somebody who wrote or contributed a lot to the article and is probably interested in it. You might get a much quicker response that way. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 16:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Your WP:Conflict of interest should be declared on your user page, and, as a paid editor, you should mention the fact when you propose changes. However, your current proposed changes seem to more factual than promotional, so there should be no problem in adding them to the article. It would help if you could provide an independent WP:reliable source, but if that cannot be found then the appropriate section of your company website should suffice for basic facts. Dbfirs 17:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Gibberish

What does "Prevent this page from creating additional dialogs" mean, why does it exist, and why doesn't it speak in plain English? I don't know the answers to any of these questions, even though I have BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi BeenAroundAWhile. I Googled "Prevent this page from creating additional dialogs". It's apparently a message in the browser Google Chrome so I guess you use that. This page is aimed at new users and allows both normal Wikipedia editing and special dialog boxes for users with the default gadget Enable the Teahouse "Ask a question" feature at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. I guess you used that and it triggered a Chrome feature which allows the user to prevent such boxes which are used for annoying adds by many websites. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I get this message when using Firefox and I do not know what it means.Charles (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

It is quite often used in javascripts and while the language maybe a bit stilted it's just a message to say the app has stopped any more pop-ups or message boxes from appearing. Nthep (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

BeenAroundAWhile If you do certain things on Wikipedia, for example reverting editors using Twinkle, then by default a new browser pages is opened up. If you click the "Prevent this page from creating additional dialogs" then it stops Wikipedia from opening new pages in separate tabs. And the message is stupid because companies are stupid and unhelpful when giving popup instruction messages. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You made me laugh, and that doesn't often happen with Wikipedia. Can I send you a kitten? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Improvement of Article

Hello again guys I just have created an article F.F.F Can anyone help me adding more information about the page And suugest for the improvements ?? Thanks you Sawongam (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SawOnGam. This article in its current form does not show that the song meets our notability guideline for songs. Also, the article has several blank sections lacking content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I will complete all the blank topic of the article by tommorow morning Is my article is going for speedy deletion or what can I know User:Cullen328|Cullen³²⁸]] Sawongam (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to this too so I don't have proof that this will work - but maybe you could try adding a personal life section that includes family, relationship, personal experience types of information. This way you add some factual information that does not sound like a marketing page.Ramosramos469 (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, SawOnGam. I'm afraid Ramosramos469's suggestion is not helpful: the article is about the album, not about the performer, so nothing about personal life can be relevant to the article (unless, possibly, an independent reliable source had discussed how the performer's life was significant for the album). What the article requires is significant material, published in reliable sources independent of the performer, talking specifically about the album. That excludes anything published or said by Bebe Rexha herself (including articles based on interviews or press releases). Nothing on iTunes should ever appear as a reference, and hardly anything on Twitter (a tweet from the official account of the subject of an article might be accepted as a primary source, but cannot contribute to notability). I have not looked through all the references, but I note that if the album was only released last week, it is quite likely that it is not yet notable: if this is the case, then nothing can save the article from deletion. --ColinFine (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there a Teahouse on other Wikimedia projects?

Hi, is there an equivalent of the Teahouse on Wikidata or Wikimedia Commons? Eg: actual humans to ask for help in real time? Many thanks from a Teahouse fan Eartha78 (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Eartha78. See Commons:Help desk‎. I don't really know about Wikidata though. TimothyJosephWood 16:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood Thanks so much Eartha78 (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

On Wikidata, it's Wikidata:Project chat, Eartha78. --ColinFine (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Can I ask some user with native English language check a page?

I created a page about film Don't call him Dimon. But my English is not perfect. Can I ask some user with English as native to check spelling, grammar, syntax, etc.? ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kap677-2 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I can do it for you. But also, what is your native language? I'm sure that there is a Wikipedia in your language. TheBD2000 (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! My native language is Russian. I created that page for inter-links about that case (in ru-wiki such page has already existed). Kap677-2 (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kap677-2: I've copyedited the first two sections for better grammar. But for the parts after that I can't always be sure what they mean so I can't copyedit them safely. --Thnidu (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!Kap677-2 (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

How to publish an Article in English on WP (a DRAFT of this article is already prepared on my SandBox)

RE : How to publish an Article in English on WP (a DRAFT of this article is already prepared on my SandBox)

Hello , I prepared the following draft of an article in English on Thomson brand for publishing on WP. Please see its contents here : here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:User:Moamoa17/sandbox Could you please explain and provide me the appropriate guidance, on how could I get this article in English to be published on WP? Your advice would be greatly appreciated. Best Regards Moamoa17 Moamoa17 (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Moamoa17. The mechanical answer is that you simply move an your sandbox to article space by moving it; but it would be a mistake to do so at this point, because it would almost certainly be deleted. You need to do some work on the formatting (presenting sections, rather than a wall of text) and, more importantly, on how the references are presented. Please read referencing for beginners. At present, I find it simply too much work to wade through to even look and see if it is anywhere near acceptable.

You also need to make your PAID declaration somewhere other than in the article itself: on your user page, or the article's talk page, or both. --ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Moamoa17:, I've moved your page to AFC Draft space so that it can be reviewed by volunteers who can provide feedback. But I'll tell you right out, you really need to read the requirements at WP:Notability (companies) to understand the benchmarks the draft must reach. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Need a review and help with publishing

Hello, I created a page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexkap79/sandbox Could someone review it please and let me know if it is ready to be published? If yes, how do we get to the "publish" phase? I can't seem to find the option anywhere! Thank you in advance for your time! Alexkap79 (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Alexkap79: it is not yet ready to be published. To be accepted as an article, it will need several reliable independent published references with significant discussion of the subject, to confirm that it is notable. At present there is only one reference, which is to the subject itself and so not independent. Maproom (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I took inspiration from two other scientific reviews, both of them short and with only one reference (the JCR one)...

Alexkap79 (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Alexkap79: I've moved your sandbox to Draft:Annals of Telecommunications and put it in the queue for review. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

How can I scan an article to find all text that is an article name, and add links?

I'm editing an article that is a list of political candidates, many of which have articles. I'd love for some process to automatically find which of them have articles, and add links. How might I do that? HenryCrun15 (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• @HenryCrun15: Just link every one of them and preview it and eliminate the redlinks or link the ones that were MPs after the election. Me and possibly some other WPNZ members can link the others. J947 18:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks, J947. I'm concerned that will still be a lot of work though. I can automatically add links (I'm using Excel to edit strings en masse, which is ok), but then we'd need to manually remove all the red ones, plus check all the links to make sure they aren't to another person with the same name. I'll give it a go and see how far I get. HenryCrun15 (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It may not be necessary to remove all the red links: use your discretion about which ones are legitimate (i.e. they probably warrant having an article, even though it does not exist yet). And there is a feature that will help with the second task you mention (verifying that your link points to the correct article): Under Preferences > Gadgets > Browsing you can tick "Navigation popups: article previews and editing functions pop up when hovering over links". Then you don't need to open each link to check it - just hover the mouse over it and you will see enough of a preview to verify it. --Gronk Oz (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• You can also copy the text into a text editor, do find/replace operations there, and then paste the results back into Wikipedia. D.Holt (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

International phone numbers

How can I find out where an international phone no. Came from? Ex. 10804450823 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.138.71 (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This page is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia.

You can ask other questions over at the Reference Desk.

However, in this case...you may get your answer from the article List of country calling codes.86.20.193.222 (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant "Related articles" listed on mobile pages

(Copied and edited from Talk:ISO 11940-2 #Why Corsican?)

In the mobile version of ISO 11940-2, which is about "an ISO standard for a simplified transcription of the Thai language into Latin characters", why is Corsican alphabet included under "Related articles"? Corsican is unrelated to Thai, and I see no parallel between the systems. Is it just an orthography chosen at random to make three "Related articles", which seems to be the required number everywhere? That would be dumb as heck, but I've seen this in other articles. I hope it's not the reason, but it's the only one I can think of. --Thnidu (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Thnidu. mw:Extension:RelatedArticles says it uses mw:Help:CirrusSearch#Morelike: "Find articles whose text is most similar to the text of the given articles." This can sometimes give results which look random. morelike:ISO 11940-2 gives me Corsican alphabet as the fourth hit. I don't know why the third hit Thai alphabet is not chosen. Maybe the three choices were cached at a time where morelike gave different results. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks. Any way to fix it manually? --Thnidu (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: See mw:Extension:RelatedArticles#Usage. I haven't tried it. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks. I'm not ready to go through installing and testing it now though, but maybe I will later this week or so. --Thnidu (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: mw:Extension:RelatedArticles has to run on the wiki's server and is already installed as Special:Version shows. It's the extension which adds "Related articles" boxes to mobile. All you have to do is add {{#related:...}} for the wanted articles. I have tried it [1] and it worked immediately. There is no option to exclude a particular article so I added three articles to make sure Corsican alphabet would not be chosen. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, PrimeHunter! --Thnidu (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not I need to invoke fair use for uploading an image

I want to upload the file for the Dare Foods company, but I don't know whether or not {{PD-textlogo}} applies to the logo. The Verified Cactus 100% 18:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The Verified Cactus: what file do you want to upload? Maproom (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

User:VerifiedCactus modifies the name a little in the visible part of the signature. I guess it's about the logo at the top left of http://www.darefoods.com. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Maproom: It is indeed the one that PrimeHunter is talking about. The Verified Cactus 100% 19:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@The Verified Cactus: I would just suggest uploading it under Fair Use per the procedures shown at WP:Logo, seems easiest. Just make sure you click the right options on the upload form for "copyright, but fair use, logo". MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 02:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

A novice at Wiki, New Page, CALL FOR ASSISTANCE

Dear Wiki:

I have begun to build a page for my mentor, employer and late father. Jaroslav Gebr. My small bio was carefully constructed to show no 'promotional, marketing desires' and simply aims to reveal his life, education and accomplishments in the world of art. However, Wiki seems to feel that the wording (so far) is 'a promotional piece'

I am a writer and have written many cover pages and promotional pages for artists over 30 years, perhaps Im not grasping the Wiki guidelines even after I have read them. I have read several hundred Wiki pages and I see very little difference in what I have seen as to what I have written.

Footnote / reference / credits guidelines are to complex for me....

IS THERE SOMEONE I CAN HIRE TO WRITE, ENTER AND HELP BUILD THIS PAGE WITH ME?

I furnish the history and informtaion, web page, news article, facts, references, etc., to establish facts and figures etc.,

Please advise..........ThomasGebr (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi ThomasGebr, welcome to the Teahouse. User:ThomasGebr/sandbox/Jaroslav Gebr was declined but has not been called promotional as far as I can tell. However, you also created two nearly identical deleted articles at JaroslavGebr and Jaroslav Gebr. They were deleted as promotional and I agree with that. Only administrators can see what deleted pages contained. They were unsourced apart from ending with "Go to www.gebrart.com for more information." Here are some quotes from the deleted articles:

• "throughout your life long romance of Motion Pictures and Television, you have subliminally admired his work over the last six decades"
• "With a parade of amazing portraits, murals and visual effects for motion pictures and television, Jaroslav enticed our emotions and our hearts with an array of exquisite creations."
• "he would create a most stunning body of work that has not since been matched by any one artist in Hollywood to this day."
• "Gebr had an incredible gift to immerse himself within an unlimited range of artistic styles."

Wikipedia is mostly written by volunteers. Paid editing is controversial and we generally don't help to facilitate it. If you do pay someone then they must follow Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello ThomasGebr. You might also try asking at WikiProject Film, to see whether anybody there would like to help out with this article. --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

How do I add a sidebox to a user page?

On the right side of most pages, and some user pages, there is a box on the side. (think ClueBot NG - the side with the bomber) How do I add that? JasonMonsters (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, JasonMonsters. It's called an infobox, and there are many different ones for different kinds of subject. Please see Help:Infobox. --ColinFine (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@JasonMonsters: User:ClueBot NG uses {{Infobox Wikipedia bot}} but as the name indicates, it's meant for bots (automated programs making edits). {{Infobox Wikipedia user}} is more relevant for your user page. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Problem in understanding wiki markup language

Thanks User:Hostbot for your welcome. I am glad to know experienced users care about new users. I have some questions and the question are:

• Is there any cheat sheet or any other page from where I can learn Wiki Markup language?
• Can anyone here become my teacher for an intermediary time?

The Editor 31 (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Help:Cheatsheet

Don't worry too much about markup. The layout of things really isn't important. What is important is, references to reliable sources.

It's easy to fix the formatting; if you write a badly-formatted article but with appropriate references, it'll be fixed up very quickly. If you write an article without references, it'll be deleted very quickly.

There's good advice at WP:FIRST. For further help, it'd be easier if you said what you want to write about, or ask for specific help with an example. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• @The Editor 31: Welcome to Wikipedia. I think your first question was answered; as for the second, there is a process in place at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. I am not sure how efficiently it works though, so let's say I unofficially adopt you; if you have any particular question, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, I should be able to answer it or point you to the correct place. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

new parameter to start quotes?

In the past, I have started a quote with 2 curly bars {{, followed by word quotation, followed by vertical straight bar |, then text. It is not working now. Has this parameter been replaced? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@TBR-qed: It still works. Maybe you forgot to close the curly bars? For instance, {{quotation|To be, or not to be...}} yields:

To be, or not to be...

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@TBR-qed: The full definition, including the parameters, can be found at {{quotation}}. Normal usage is:

{{Quotation|text=Quoted material. |author=Attribution |source=Reference }} --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@TBR-qed: Same answer you had at #trouble formatting quotes a couple of days ago. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft for Submission through the WikipediaArticle wizard

Hi. I have written an article about the company that I work for and would like to submit a draft through the WikipediaArticle wizard.

Please can you advise about how to do this?

Many thanks,

Owen Whitehead

Owen Whitehead (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Firstly you need to read about conflict of interest and about paid editing. After that, if you still want to go ahead, you'll find guidance at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

What content should not be in my page "Unold Story of a common boy" for the approval.

Untold Story of a common boy, i have created this page for the novel info with same name earlier this morning but somehow it has been deleted due to inappropriate contents. I am first user of this so please guide me with best possible suggestion to make this post active only for info purpose of the novelBrijesh Kumar Pathak (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Brijesh Kumar Pathak. Have you read the comments that have been placed on your User talk page? They explain what the problem is. Your language above "... how to make this post active only for the purpose of the novel" makes me suspect that you are here for the sole purpose of Promotion: this is forbidden on Wikipedia. The purpose of a Wikikpedia article is to form part of an encyclopaedia: nothing else. If you come here with another purpose, you are likely to get frustrated. --ColinFine (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I realised I didn't directly answer your question, Brijesh Kumar Pathak. The answer is, the article should contain not contain anything at all that does not derive from a reliably published source, and almost nothing that derives from you or your associates. Wikipedia has essentially no interest at all in anything which the subject of an article, or friends or associates of the subject, have said or want to say about the subject. If there is to be an article about your novel, it should be based close to 100% on what people who have no connection with you have published about the novel (and that will exclude anything based on a press release or interview, as these would still be from you). If there have been substantial reviews published in reliable sources such as major newspapers, then there can be an article, based entirely on what these reviews say (good and bad): but it should still not be you writing the article. Please see your first article and conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

dear collin

Thanks for your valuable comment and suggestion. Brijesh Kumar Pathak (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC) I moved your reply here to the correct section ColinFine (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I need my page and the picture that I am trying to upload approved please.

I have created the same page on the afrikaans wikipedia but am now trying to create it on the english one and am having trouble.CarmenPretoriusSA (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia discourages WP:Autobiographies, but you seem to have created a factual rather than a promotional article. You need to add WP:reliable sources such as newspaper articles about yourself to confirm the facts that you state. Is this article a direct translation of the afrikaans article? If so, then this needs to be acknowledged. See WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects. Dbfirs 12:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

(The article in afwiki is in fact in English, Dbfirs). CarmenPretoriusSA, as well as the issues that Dbfirs points out, you need to understand that each Wikipedia has its own rules and standards and the English version has higher standards than many. The article about you in afwiki would not be acceptable in enwiki, because it does not meet the rigorous standards of referencing required for biographies of living persons. Furthermore, evaluative phrases such as "best known for", "noted", and "popular" are never acceptable in enwiki articles in Wikipedia's voice: they are only allowed when directly quoting an reliable source independent of the subject. Please read WP:NPOV. --ColinFine (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd assumed that an article on the Afrikaans Wikipedia would be written in Afrikaans. The draft that I read and commented on has now been deleted because of the lack of references. Dbfirs 17:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, CarmenPretoriusSA, you have uploaded the picture commons:File:Carmen Pretorius.jpg to Wikimedia Commons (so that it should be usable directly in any Wikimedia project); but you have declared that it is your own work, and that you are the copyright holder, and so have the right to license it under CC-BY-SA. Are you sure that this is the case? It would be unusual, as the copyright in a photo is usually held by the photogtrapher; or if their contract reassigns the copyright, it is usually to a publicity or management company rather than to the subject. Wikimedia takes copyright very seriously, and insists that this sort of thing is handled properly. --ColinFine (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

A major problem

Hello everyone ,.. i joined wikipedia a month ago. Does this mean i cant submit my own articles ? I read about a new flying car invented by some ppl in japan, also i know about spacex . Cant i make articles on these ? I tried submitting 3 articles but none of them were accepted ! How long can i keep on editing ? Please help me.. thanking you, Jordanben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanben (talk • contribs) 16:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Jordanben, you can keep on editing as long as you like. But creating articles is difficult, even for moderately experienced editors. I suggest that you start by doing something easier, at least for a while. Maproom (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jordanben. Please note that we already have articles called SpaceX and Flying car. There have been many proposals and prototypes of flying cars in the last 100 years but none have gone into production. An article about the Japanese design you mentioned would only be appropriate if it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Reprinting press releases from the promoters is not sufficient. Please read Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

thank you cullen .But i told this bcoz i have done research on the flying car .And it was released recently . I saw about the flying car .But i felt the info given wasnt enough.I want to help improve wikipedia. thank you anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanben (talk • contribs) 03:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jordanben: Hi Jordan, you can always add the information about the new flying car technology to the existing page at Flying car (aircraft). Let us know if you have further questions as to go about doing this. Justin15w (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I want to write an article but I need help

Hi I'm from Washington, D.C. I'm a up coming interviewer I was looking at some of the artist wiki has written up from Washington, D.C. Like Fat Trel and Shy Glizzy now Known As Jefe and them articles need to be polished up also I was surprised when I looked up ReMix Reek and Light Show and seen there isn't an article up about them at all. I want to write an article about the Artist ReMix Reek but I need help can anybody assist me. I recently did an interview on him I have the info, references etc . — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindaMcCall (talk • contribs) 17:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

LindaMcCall: if you've found some articles that need to be polished up, I suggest you do that first. It's much easier to improve an existing article than to create a new one from scratch. And you'll be gaining valuable experience for when you do decide to create a new article. Maproom (talk) 12:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@LindaMcCall: For writing on Wikipedia or any other public space, and certainly If you hope to have your interviews published professionally, you are going to have to improve your writing in many respects. Your punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and grammar all need considerable work. For example, you wrote

• I'm a up coming interviewer I was looking at some of the artist wiki has written up from Washington, D.C.

For standard English rather than the way you might talk or text to your friends, I would change that to

• I'm an up-and-coming interviewer. I was looking at some of the artists from Washington, D.C. who have articles in Wikipedia.

Details

1. "Up" begins with a vowel sound, so you have to use "an", not "a".
2. "Upcoming" (one word) means "going to happen soon", like a singer's tour. "Up-and- coming" means
   • (of a person beginning a particular activity or occupation) making good progress and likely to become successful.
   • example: "up-and-coming young players"
3. "I was looking..." is the beginning of a new sentence, so you need a period after "interviewer" to end the first sentence. See Run-on sentence.
4. "some of the artists". You really don't want "some of the artist". That's like "some of the roast beef". What part would you like, a hand or a rib?
5. "wiki has written up". It's Wikipedia, or "the wiki" if you want to use the generic word "wiki". And Wikipedia itself doesn't write things up, many thousands of volunteer editors do.

--Thnidu (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@LindaMcCall: See Detail #3. I forgot to include it before. --Thnidu (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

bots

what is a wikipedia bot? is it a computer? is it an actual robot that can work on the computer? how do people make and operate them? The garmine ^(talk) 15:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You'll find an explanation at WP:Bots. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, The garmine. Our article Software agent gives a good overview of what are commonly called "bots" on Wikipedia, and how they operate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

citing websites

Hi all! Can someone show me the format for citations from websites please? Thank you!Jdimaggio1 (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jdimaggio1. Please read Template:Cite web where the format is explained in great detail. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jdimaggio1. You might also want to take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners for some general tips on adding citations to articles. Many new editors often turn their lonely eyes to that particular page when they have trouble with citations. (woo, woo, woo) -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

thank you both for your help! problem solved!!Jdimaggio1 (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The article on Deism needs updates.

The article on Deism needs some updates, as the information in some areas is not quite accurate or complete. Overall it is fairly well written, but I found a couple of spots that need to be tweaked. I can do it without altering the layout or 95% of what is already printed.

As for sources, I am using myself and some journals/articles that I have written over the years. I have a Doctor of Theology degree from seminary, I am an ordained minister, a police chaplain and have identified as a deist for over 20 years. I know the history of deism backward and forward, I know the comparative points between it and theism, and how deism is often misrepresented as a type of theism.

Is there a way that I can submit some of those changes for review before they go live? CDFinch (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi CDFinch and welcome to the Teahouse. It is always helpful to have someone with some expertise working on articles. You cannot use what you know as a reference, as strange as this may seem. An an encyclopedia Wikipedia only includes material that has been published somewhere else first. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and the section there on reliable sources. You can use your own articles if they have been published in journals or other places with editorial oversight. However citing oneself is usually discouraged. Instead you could cite the sources you used in writing your articles. Be careful about altering sections that are followed by a reference. They need to reflect what the references say. If you need to change them, provide new references. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello @CDFinch: To answer your question about a way for review, a couple options here:

• You can go to Talk:Deism and post suggested changes there and ask for input. Depending on how many people have the article watchlisted (meaning they get an alert when someone posts a change) you might get a lot of feedback or none. If you want to make sure interested parties are aware, you can post your suggested changes, then post a quick "Input needed at Talk:Deism" over at WT:WikiProject Religion to alert more interested parties.
• There's also a Wikipedia rule-of-thumb WP:BEBOLD. If you think you have a change that's clearly an improvement, go ahead and make it and if someone disagrees, accept the dispute with good grace and hash it out on the Talk page. Better to be too bold (even if it gets reverted) than too shy.
• To build on what SG says above, the absolute main thing is sourcing, some reputable publication to cite for a given claim. Removing uncited material that's wrong, or adding citations to united material, are pretty non-controversial moves. Removing cited material tends to raise questions (not that that's bad) since it implies that either the source is bad, or the source has been misrepresented. Just make your changes a step at a time (like fix one section before going on to the other) and leave a good clear Edit Summary (the on-line window under your editing window) to explain why you're removing or adding something, and that'll help other editors understand where you're headed.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Adding photos to pages

Hi! I am wondering about adding photos to wiki pages. Sorry if this is covered elsewhere, I am just having a hard time understanding. I understand adding from wiki media, but is that the only way to add photos unless you took the photo yourself and it is your own creative license? Terasaface (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Tersaface well come.

You can find easy instructions for photo uploads here.

Best wishes.

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 03:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Terasaface:, Wikimedia is for photos that are released under Creative Commons license, either photos that you yourself hold the rights to and are personally releasing, photos already explicitly released by their creator under CC, or images in the Public Domain. If you want to add a photo that doesn't meet those criteria, let us know here a little more explicitly what you'd like to do. On Wikipedia itself (outside of Commons) there are provisions for uploading certain WP:Fair Use images like photos of the deceased, corporate logos, movie posters and book covers, etc. under more restrictive conditions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @Aftab Banoori:@MatthewVanitas:

Here is an example that I am wondering about, I am editing the page for Lorna Simpson and I have found this image on wikimedia that is an album cover that she designed. It is labeled under "non-free" content, and if I understand correctly, is to be used in the article for the album itself. Would I be able to use this image on Simpson's wiki page to illustrate when describing the album cover work? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Common_Black_America_Again.jpg Thank you! Terasaface (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Terasaface: great question, and nope, a "non-free" file can only be used on the one specific article it is about. So for example a non-free file of a movie poster can be used to illustrate the article for that movie, but not to illustrate an article about an actor from that movie. Sorry the answer is negative, but your question is a good one. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@MatthewVanitas: That totally makes sense, thank you for clearing that up! Terasaface (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

International Women's Day vandalism

Can we get some kind of block on the IWD page because it is getting a lot of vandalism at the moment...?Jack Upland (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Article: South African Social Security Acrticle.

Can anyone who is willing to help me try to help me fix an error on the page mentioned on the subject/headline. I copied a category on a biographical article relating to the page. It looks like I copied the information incorrectly and now I cannot fix the page because it does not display on the edit page and the animated pencil which you can click on does not appear on the sub category ('Social grant controversy'.) May kindly I request for anyone to fix it or try to help me on how to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkoko Siphamandla (talk • contribs) 07:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This must be about South African Social Security Agency. I see that David Biddulph has already corrected the article. Maproom (talk) 09:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

After one suggests an article change on a talk page, if no response, …

as a general rule, how long should one wait prior to implementing the change? Humanengr (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Humanengr. The general rule is: zero seconds! Just do it, without even going to the talk page at first; if someone objects, they can "revert" your edit, and then you should both go on the talk page and discuss it, but there is no need to preventively discuss.

Of course, this is the general rule. If you know your edit is likely to be problematic, or if it was already discussed and rejected previously, you should discuss it beforehand. In that case, there is no hard rule on the waiting time (except for codified procedures such as WP:RFC etc.), but I would say no answer for a week is silent consent. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Trying to revise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Llopis

Glenn Llopis asked me to revise his page on Wikipedia to address issues of neutrality and ad language. I did so as a first round and had another party review but it was dinged again. So I went back in and tried to focus just on the facts and no language that might be deemed promotional. But before I have someone review again I would love feedback on what if anything there is an issue about now so that perhaps the issues won't come back. How do I do that? I have never done this before. I know I can't do anything in writing about the orphan issue. Jim JimmyDonuts (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome JimmyDonuts! After looking at the article I do see several problems:

• Glenn Llopis may simply not meet our notability guidelines. While there are several reliable sources in your references, they are all essentially one-sentence quotes attributed to Llopis. A person who meets GNG for a biography will generally have articles that provide biographical information about them (e.g. where were they born, where did they go to school, are they married, etc.) beyond simply verifying the fact they exist. The sources now only catalog a smattering of 10-15 word inspirational quotes.
• Providing a list of places he's written ("Blogs and Other Platforms") is atypical and should probably be omitted. Also, it appears almost all of his publications are self-published and should probably be indicated as such, grouped into a "bibliography" section. You may want to follow the format and layout used in biographies such as Guy Kawasaki, instead of creating your own; these follow a pretty typical template of "early life", "career", "personal life" (if applicable), "bibliography", "see also", and "external links".
• Three of the four external links appear to have nothing to do with Glenn Llopis other than the fact that they're organizations in which he's involved with in one way or the other. Per WP:EXT, you should probably omit everything except his official site.
• There are a number of claims that have no reliable sources proving their veracity or authenticity, e.g. "In 1997, Llopis launched Luna Rossa Gourmet Foods, which sold vegetables, pasta sauce, and salad dressing under the Luna Rossa and Chef’s Harvest brands."

DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

THANKS! I have made many of the changes you say. I found the link to the Luna Rossa site that clearly indicates it was created and run by Glenn. Though all the web sites are actually his businesses your point is EXCELLENT and I have omitted them (if it is not clear, GONE). I have added back in his work on the immigrant perspective which was cited in several sources and I have included one now. I have removed the blogs and indicated the books that were self-published. What I would LIKE to do if you think it is warranted is to try and address the two points I CAN address: neutrality and that it is written like an ad. Do you think those have been addressed? I obviously need to go deeper into the notability guidelines as I neither created nor knew why he had a page just doing as a friend. The orphan is not in my control either. JimJimmyDonuts (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

HI JimmyDonuts. You're also going to need to provide proof that the original copyright holder of File:Glenn Llopis.jpg has agreed to release under a free license suitable for Wikimedia Commons. In most cases, the photographer is considered to be the copyright holder of any photos they take unless there's been an copyright transfer agreement. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

We have removed the photo. Thank you. I was told the release existed. It does not. My apologies. JimmyDonuts (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

We? Please read Wikipedia:Username policy#Usernames implying shared use Lectonar (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

User:DarjeelingTea, would you mind reviewing for notability again and see if the issue you added could be removed? I realize that in editing I deleted two outside sources that do what you say, the first of which seems to be why Glenn was given the page in the first place as he did not set it up, only added to it. If you think that as is it has no notability merit then we will delete it. I was just trying to update it and make it comply with the issues but better to remove it than have the notability questioned! JimmyDonuts (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

protocols for major changes?

I have revised the existing article “instrumental value,” which has two warnings below its title.

I would like to take 3 major actions: 1) change the title; 2) remove the warning; 3) eliminate two other articles, the contents of which I have included in my revision--“intrinsic value” and “instrumental conception of technology”

my question: Are there established protocols for these 3 actions? Many thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey TBR-qed. There's a lot to unpack here.

• Renaming a page is called "moving". For a complete explanation of this process see Wikipedia:Moving a page.
• The warnings at the top of the article are article maintenance templates, which add the article to lists such as WP:BACKLOG which users can visit if they are interested in contributing by fixing specific types of problems. They can be removed basically whenever a problem is fixed, but before they are, you should review the link in the template to make sure you have a good understanding of the problem, and are able to accurately judge whether it's totally taken care of.
• If the other two articles have been merged, (see also WP:MERGE), then they should probably be redirected to the article they've been merged with. For a full explanation of this process, see WP:REDIRECT.
• Finally, looking at the article it looks like you may also benefit from reviewing guidance at WP:LEAD, since the current article doesn't seem to conform to that standard and probably need a good bit of work in that area.

I know I just threw about 50 links at you, so if you have any follow up questions feel free to ask away. TimothyJosephWood 14:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@TBR-qed: You asked twice recently about the format of the {{quotation}} tag and were answered at #new parameter to start quotes? and at #trouble formatting quotes, so please correct the malformatted quotations which you have left in the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Nanny Nkhosi

Hi, I'm Nanny Nkhosi I want to ask a question how to add a picture when you have the free Wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanny Nkhosi (talk • contribs) 16:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nanny Nkhosi:

If it is your own picture, it's quite easy.

If it is from the internet, we probably cannot use it, due to copyrights.

Description of the picture goes here

Assuming the copyright is OK,

1. Upload it, by following instructions at Commons:Upload Wizard
2. To add it to an article, put [[File:YOUR-FILE-NAME-HERE.jpg|thumb|Description of the picture goes here]].

For more detailed help, see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Article for Michael Devin.

Hi. I'm not exactly new to the Wikipedia. I've made one hundred edits and gotten many notable authors, writers musicians with pages.

Anyway, now I'm exasperated because someone is saying I did not respect to adding more notability material when in fact I sure did at lots of references and citations including a People magazine and Rolling Stones. So what's wrong?!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Devin Rattletap (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. References are really really important. You will see many articles lack them, but any facts on an article that do not have a referenced can be removed by anyone. So when a draft is reviewed, it's essential that everything is verifiable in an appropriate reliable source.

For example, the "Early Life" section of your draft begins, Devin was born and raised in New England. OK, so, where can we check that that is correct? It needs a reference to a reliable source, such as a book or newspaper article. Like this;

Devin was born and raised in New England.<ref>"Meet Devin", New York Times, 1 April 2017</ref>.

If the reference is online, include the URL and the date you accessed it; for more help see Help:Referencing for beginners.

Next, it says, "At 12, he obtained his first bass guitar and began learning the songs of AC/DC" - OK, so where can we check that that is true? ...and so on, for every fact in the draft.

If you can't provide a reliable source for some of the info, just remove it. And if there's enough references to "substantial" coverage in appropriate reliable sources, it shows the person is notable enough for an article.

Good luck, I hope that helps, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The article which I'm currently working on is always rejecting by the reviewers ?

The Article Draft: Gokul Shrinivas - I'm currently working on this article. I have more than 10 reliable sources and His name with photograph mentioned. But I get a review feedback that there are no reliable sources hence rejected. Please someone advice or someone do help me in this regard !!! Or else I won't get a degree.Jonathan629 (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)jonathan629Jonathan629 (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jonathan629. Please read WP:Referencing for beginners. Your existing references (at least the first two) are links to copyright violations, and are not permitted. (This is not about the content or quality of your references - which I haven't investigated - but the mechanism). By uploading scans of newspapers you are almost certainly violating their copyright, and Wikipedia does not allow linking to copyright violations. Most major newspapers are now available on line anyway, but even if these are not, you do not need to link to them. For most sources, a URL is nothing more than a courtesy to the reader, and the important bit is the information which will allow a reader to find the source even if it is not online - journal, title, date, author etc. --ColinFine (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, Jonathan629. I have removed the forbidden links from the first two references of Draft:Gokul Shrinivas. I can't actually read the scan of the first one to see whether it says anything significant about him, but the second one is merely a listing of his name as a prize-winner, and furthermore is not independent of him, as it appears to be an ad boasting about "our alumni". Looking at the seven references adduced for his winning a prize, the first three, at least, do not mention his name. In the same way that fifty times nothing is nothing, fifty references of no value have no value. Please study WP:42 - and consider the possibility that Shrinivas might not actually currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for notabililty. --ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)--ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Perfection of uploaded articles, images and posts

Thanks for the invitation, how do perfect that which i paste, such as the images and referencesPrincenuni (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Princenuni. Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid it appears as if you have done what many people do and plunged straight into the very difficult task of trying to create a new article without having spent time learning how Wikipedia works. I wonder if you have even read the very useful essay called your first article?

For my part, I am not even prepared to look at the wall of text you have presented at Draft:Nunitec Empire and Draft:Malcolm Agyapong-Nuni to see what needs to be done to them. The first thing you need to do is to learn and apply Wikimarkup, so that they become more legible. You also need to read Referencing for beginners, to understand not just how to format references, but also what kind of references we require: references to Wikipedia are never acceptable, because Wikipedia (being a user-generated source) is not reliable in the required sense. Then you need to understand that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what you (or I) know or think, and very little interest in what a subject says about themselves (or what their associates say about them). A Wikipedia article should be mostly based on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about the subject in reliable places. An article should ideally not contain one single claim that has not been published in a reliable source.

I suggest you don't worry about images until you sort out the more important and fundamental issues of readability and referencing. --ColinFine (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Malcolm and Nunitec

Give Nunitec a chance. It is in the registration process.

Thank you all.Princenuni (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Please give Malcolm and Nunitec a chance. With warm Regards. --194.95.142.180 (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Princenuni, considering that Nunitec is "young" and "being registered", which I'm assuming means that it isn't actually a company yet that is actually doing any business, it does not qualify for a Wikipedia article. It's great that you "aim to reach beyond galaxies", and I'm sure when you accomplish that, there will be a Wikipedia article waiting. We do not make, keep, or "give chances" to articles on businesses which themselves have not already been written about it reliable secondary sources. TimothyJosephWood 19:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

How many links should be included?

I'm editing an article that has many notable musicians listed. Should I link every musician? I believe it would make the article hard to read. Soli58 (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you find blue text harder to read than black text? See WP:Overlink for guidance. Dbfirs 21:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

What is the article? How about having a separate section heading: Notable musicians, where the musicians can be added with clickable links, dates etc so that all can be included within the body of the article without detracting from the flow of the text. Would that work? Mramoeba (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Complaint!

I made a lot of football players career changes based on reliable sources. According to user Jaellee, I made one which was not reliable and so he sent me a messsage. In the end I was right but after that message almost all the chenges I had made where cancelled! Now I don't feel like helping again. Sorry... Slash V (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the best policy would be to add references for your changes as you make them, then they should not be reverted. Content disputes are best discussed on the respective talk pages of the disputed articles. Dbfirs 21:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback for my major edit re: Eugene, Oregon history

I have researched and written an edit for the history of Eugene, Oregon. I will probably want to use the WYSIWYG tool to edit the actual Wikipedia entry, but would appreciate some feedback on what I have written before I attempt any changes.

My edit does not change any of the history post-1856 but adds pre-1856 Native history. I also changed the current first paragraph for flow. But there is no change to its actual content. What I plan to add is currently in my sandbox and includes the footnotes.

How do I go about having it reviewed?Silver Water (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Assuming that you are talking about User:Silver Water/sandbox, the first thing you need to do is to learn about referencing. You need to read Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, David Biddulph, for your reply. I have read Referencing for beginners and have begun the process of putting my footnotes in the appropriate form, using the visual editing tool. It will take me a few days to a week to finish this process.

Next, I assume my article can be reviewed for content? Thank you again for your reply. Silver WaterSilver Water (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Silver Water:, to answer a couple questions:

• Fixing your footnotes is the main thing; no hurry, go at your own pace and ask us if you have questions. Note that using "ibid" is discouraged since later edits could change the order of the footnotes and confuse what "ibid" is referring to, so instead you can use the WP:Refname coding when you have repeated footnotes to one source. You also need to WP:Wikilink key terms, and split your section up into WP:Sub-sections
• So far as "review", your best bet would be to post at Talk:Eugene, Oregon and say "hey guys, I want to add the material at User:Silver Water/sandbox to the History section, what do you think?" If you don't get any reply in a few days, I'd say just go ahead and add it in provided your formatting is all good. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@MatthewVanitas Thank you. I do have some questions about footnotes. Would it be better to continue in this thread or start a new thread with that specific topic?

Thank you also for the information about ibid, key terms, and sub-sections. Sounds like I still have a lot to do.63.155.170.196 (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)