Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 265

This is an current talk page .

What are some of the most important things to keep in mind while adding a new person / profile / article to Wikipedia? I know that it cannot be completely promotional. However, I also know that it can be promotional if it is true. What crucial information needs to be in the content, how many editors need to be a part of the article, how many citations, etc..? Thanks! Wes6000 (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,

reliable, independent sources say about the topic. The minimum number of editors is one. Much more important than the number of citations is the quality of the citations. A handful of solid sources (respected newspapers, journals and books) is much better than a large number of mediocre sources (blogs, YouTube videos, social media posts, scandal and gossip sites, self published material, and so on). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

00:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This is great. Thank you for the enlightening information. How can I become a bigger part of Wikipedia as a editor and helper? Wes6000 (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That is simple in concept, Wes6000. Simply expand and improve existing encyclopedia articles, or write new articles, in compliance with our policies and guidelines. Once you have a good understanding of policies and guidelines, which comes through months and years of active experience, then help newer editors with the challenges they face. This is a collaborative project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to get a second opinion on my article for EMMA BEE BERNSTEIN, which has apparently been rejected due to the subject 'not being notable enough'. This is complete hogwash, and I suspect a personal issue with the wikipedia editor under their assumed persona.

Bernstein's photographs have been reviewed in the New York Times. She wrote a notable book. Her death was written about in THE NEW YORK POST, and ect. The link to the New York Times article was conveniently removed by some other editor 'fixing' my article. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS, and I would like another editor to take a look at my draft and review it fairly immediately

Here is the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Emma_Bee_Bernstein

I implore other editors to take a look at it, who do not have a hidden personal agenda.

If the article is still rejected, I will take the draft and the story to the media. I am not kidding. Tractatus11 (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note placed on the Tractatus11's talk page KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 22:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tractatus11. It appears that there are a couple of things that you don't yet understand about Wikipedia. First, we are a community of volunteers, about 80,000 of whom are considered active. Do you think we would care if you took the story to the media? It would be far from the first story critical of Wikipedia - have a look at Criticism of Wikipedia. Second, one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia is civility. And one aspect of civility is that we don't accuse someone of a hidden agenda just because we don't like their decision. That said, the subject looks notable to me. I see you have resubmitted it; I would suggest pinning down more of the biographical details with citations. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I have examined all edits by others in the page history [2] and found no sign that a link has been removed. If you think otherwise then please give a diff as evidence. See Help:Diff. Some links were moved to more appropriate places. Maybe this confused you. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

My article was also reviewed by someone in India who has no arts background, and admits to speaking 'passable' English. Is this really the right person to be reviewing an article about a writer, or culture and the arts in america?

Please take another look. I will make minor chnages if you really think they are necessary. But the subject is indeed "notable" for a number of reasons. Thanks. Tractatus11 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tractatus11: Which part of the need for civility do you fail to understand? Your behaviour here has been unpleasant, hectoring and threatening so far. You do not endear yourself to anyone here and you still expect a review of your draft in a speedy manner? Good luck with that. Pull your horns in, apologise, and start over. Fiddle Faddle 23:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I am being perfectly civil. But, yes, I think if wikipedia shows some prejudice about young female artists, who have myriad accomplishments, not being "notable" enough for wikipedia, that might be of concern to a lot of people...Tractatus11 (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tractatus11: No, you are being uncivil. You call into question the ability of someone who acts as a volunteer reviewer, and you threaten a press exposé. And you think you are in the right here! You are the only one in step. I say again, pull your horns in, apologise and start over.

For what it's worth, your draft will be treated on its merits by a reviewer when they get to it. That may be today or in a few weeks. You may as well work on some of the rather poor formatting you have in the references section in the meantime and continue to improve the draft. But your antics here will get you no priority.

People here are people, with the frailties people have. Your stridency is aggravating the people you want to be on your side. Can that be a good idea? I mean seriously, can that be a good idea? Fiddle Faddle 00:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Fiddle Faddle--you are the last person I would take advice on "civility" from. "pulling in my horns"?....spare me. Either someone who barely speaks English, and knows nothing about the arts, or someone with a hidden agenda has "reviewed" and rejected my perfectly fine article. Yes, I am annoyed.Tractatus11 (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If you need help from others you shouldn't obtain it by threatening them or accusing them. Look at how you asked your question, you tried to manipulate other editors by dragging media into it. Yes, I know it's disappointing when your article get rejected but there are certain policies on Wikipedia which applies to everyone. Rules are rules. You have to understand that we all do make mistakes. If you think someone else made a mistake there is a way to ask them about it. Your manners discourages other editors chance to help you. Please be nice to others. Wikipedia is not a social media where you can bully others. I hope you will understand and turn a new page--Chamith (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tractatus11: You will do as you wish. If this means that you continue to stamp your foot and complain then you will do that. IN due course people will get fed up enough with you to ignore you. The person looks notable. Make sure your references verify that and await a review peacefully. I imagine the next review may accept it. But your behaviour towards others here needs to change from petulance and anger to working with people. Getting the people you wish to help you upset with you is not a useful skill. I suggest you unlearn it. Fiddle Faddle 00:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There was no help or civility in the way my article was reviewed and rejected. No explanation. No help. Just "not notable." Which is clear to anyone who knows anything about the arts in America as simply untrue. If the article needs a little work, fine. This person was completely unhelpful and (excuse the "incivility"--ignorant of the subject.)Tractatus11 (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tractatus11: It really is time to stop this. No-one cares, you know. We do care about your behaviour, not your draft. And your behaviour will, in due course, if it continues for long enough, result in your being blocked from editing. Take a step away form the keyboard and your combative stance. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we . push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. However, you make folk want to avoid reviewing this one lest they get a tirade from youFiddle Faddle 00:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You were upset because one editor declined your review. And you came here to manipulate other editors to get your article accepted?. If I were you I would have ask for help in a peaceful manner rather than blaming all the editors.--Chamith (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I care. I care about my article, and a lot of other people are going to care about my article. My behavior is not as important as my article. My main problems have been aired. I am open to all sorts of criticisms, and have been on teahouse before asking all kinds of questions in good spirit--but "not notable" is ludricrous.Tractatus11 (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The notability of this person is open to debate,

Memorial articles

are highly discouraged here. It is up to you to show her notability convincingly, based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Questions about her notability are far from "hogwash" and "ludicrous", but are instead entirely routine when evaluating new articles. As for other editors having some "personal agenda", either furnish proof or consider withdrawing a baseless charge.

You are welcome to write an article about your experiences here on Wikipedia. Please be sure to link to this conversation, so that your readers can see the aggressive way you have conducted yourself on what is supposed to be a collaborative project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is in the Draft: namespace as a submitted draft. Please read

WP:OWN. Please also read the terms and conditions under which you submitted this draft. It may well be accepted at some point in the future. I imagine some people will even enjoy reading your work and the work of others. And to achieve that faster you need to ameliorate your tone and behaviour. That behaviour influences the speed at which it is likely to be reviewed. Of course, someone may take pity on you and review it just to get it, and your tirades out of the way, but it isn't likely. The article appears to have a picture in it uploaded in breach of copyright, too. You need to rectify that. There is a system for validating copyright and you need to use it. Fiddle Faddle

00:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@

User:Cutest Penguin saying "This user can contribute with a near-native level of English"? If you falsify quotes to diminish reviewers then it really doesn't help your case. PrimeHunter (talk

) 00:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Fiddle Faddle I went through the upload image wizard process, and I believe it said if an image was already used in a magazine it was public, and okay to use on wikipedia. Tractatus11 (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Primehunter, those 'kind' of quotes are not direct quotes, but merely for emphathization. Tractatus11 (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Do not use quotation marks for that purpose when you allegedly refer to what others have said. If you post this conversation elsewhere then please include a link to the actual conversation so readers can see for themselves what was said. This page will be archived elsewhere in some time but you can click "Permanent link" under "Tools" in the left pane to get a link which will continue to show the conversation as it looked when you clicked that link. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Cullen, I have indeed established notability. Her death is not the only notable thing about her, and I find that statement completely rude and uncalled for.Tractatus11 (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed you have not. I have analysed your references in a comment on the draft and can see that you are some of the way there, but you have by no means verified to our standards that the lady is notable. You have work to do. You need to find sufficient references to establish her notability to the satisfaction of the community. At present my view is that, were the draft moved to the main namespace, it would be subject to one of the deletion mechanisms and would be likely to fail top be retained. Since you will not wish this to happen there is more work to be done, and done by you, Tractatus11, because you are the author who wishes the draft to be accepted and retained.

Your diversion into some sort of imagined anti-female bias (below) is laughable and is an indication that you have no intention of ameliorating your tone and behaviour. Fiddle Faddle 01:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

So how many wikipedia editors are women? I'll bet "cute penguin" is even a man. There's some real misogyny going on here. It's gross. Yes, and I would gladly post this entire conversation (including my 'oh so uncivil' comments) if I were to write about it elsewhere.Tractatus11 (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have written quite a few Wikipedia biographies of women artists, and writing biographies of photographers is one of my joys. I see no trace of misogyny here, and not a hint of evidence that this person's gender is a factor in the comments of any experienced editor here. Please give us a link to your future writings about Wikipedia, Tractatus11, as I will enjoy reading them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You are the only one who has made reference to gender. If you think the gender of Emma Bee Bernstein has affected the review or discussion then that's pure speculation and I find it very unlikely. If you are female and think this has affected the treatment of you then you have not stated your gender and we don't know it. I don't know the gender of Cutest Penguin and don't care but. For what it's worth, the code {{gender:Cutest Penguin|male|female|not specified}} produces not specified. It currently says "not specified", meaning that the user has not specified the gender at Special:Preferences. Most users don't specify their gender. That's perfectly OK. Unspecified is the default setting and not something you actively have to choose among three options. Studies show there is a majority of men among Wikipedia editors. That may tilt some volunteer work towards traditionally male interests like sports, wars, computer games, but I see no reason anyone reviewing an art article would decline it because the subject is female. A huge number of submitted articles about all sorts of topics are declined and authors often get upset. Improving the article and resubmitting is more constructive than complaining. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, no trace of misogyny here....hilarious.Tractatus11 (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Tractatus11 (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I would never say anything like that to you, Tractatus11, but it is like water off a duck's back to me. On your way out the door, why don't you read Leni Sinclair, a biography I wrote of a notable woman photographer. You might consider it a model if you decide to return to Wikipedia editing once you have calmed down. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I have created a draft 3 weeks ago entitled Draft:You (Marcia Hines/Rita Coolidge song). I am wondering if there is some problem with my article, as I inquired about it this evening and there seems to be some snag. Please help?? Thanks.JGabbard (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JGabbard. Your draft was declined due to problems with the sourcing. One of the main claims to notability is that the song reached #25 on Billboard's Hot 100. But your reference #4 is to an Eric Carmen song. Plus, your reference #5 is a dead link. Fix up the article, remove bad references, add better ones, and you will probably receive approval if you resubmit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so very much, Cullen328! References are now replaced with good links.JGabbard (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I edited Actor Aadhi page few days ago. Made many edits, added a lot of content found in regular sites that posts about movies and all the changes that I made was there for weeks but now I visited the page only to see all my edits and the new content is removed. Why was all what I did to the page undone??? May be who ever has done that could have informed me before doing it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsbridge (talk • contribs) 13:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there @Letsbridge: Welcome to the Teahouse. It's usually best to ask the editor who reverted your edits (in this case, Materialscientist (talk · contribs)) before seeking outside help. That's usually the easiest and quickest way to get the answer you need. If there's still a conflict after that, then getting input from other editors is appropriate. By the looks of it, Materialscientist did indeed leave you a note on your talk page explaining their reversion:

"Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you."

To expand on this further, content added to Wikipedia should have references showing the source that information is coming from - especially for biographies of living persons. Help:Referencing_for_beginners provides a nice guide for this.

I also noticed that a lot of the content you added to the page were quotes praising the actor. Wikipedia's goal is to cover article subjects in a neutral manner, adequately representing what is covered in reliable and independent sources. While having a few quotes representative of the overall reception of actors is fine, giant lists of quotes and praise don't do much from an encyclopedic standpoint, and could be considered promotional.

Let us know if you need any more clarification or information. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 13:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"Speedy deletion nomination of File:Emma Bee Bernstein.jpg[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on File:Emma Bee Bernstein.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://chicagoartreview.com/2010/02/11/weekend-preview-keep-on-creepin-on/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fiddle Faddle 00:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)" Tractatus11 (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It was my understanding that if a photograph appeared in a public magazine, I would have no problem with copyright. Would someone like to clarify this? Or are we just trying to find any reason to delete this article? Tractatus11 (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@

talk

) 00:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The notice is clear. The file is unlikely to be your copyright, the more so since it is declared to be a self portrait. The copyright will be vested in the estate of the deceased subject of the picture. The article is not subject to the speedy deletion notice, but the file is. Fiddle Faddle 00:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If the magazine can use it, and it's public, why can't wikipedia? Can I get permission from the magazine to use it for wikipedia? Tractatus11 (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

How are other artworks shown on wikipedia articles? Surely the people who wrote the articles of those artists do not own the copyright to their work, nor are they public domain.Tractatus11 (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

We have literally tens of millions of freely licensed photographs available on Wikimedia Commons, every one of which has been released by its copyright holder. Those photos can be used by anyone, for any purpose, for free, with only the proper credit. I upload my own photos quite often under a free license. If you took that photo, you can do the same. If you didn't take it, the photographer or their estate owns the copyright, not you or Wikipedia.

99.9% of photos published in magazines are copyrighted and restricted from general usage on Wikipedia. Exceptions are historical photos first published before 1923, as copyright has expired. Also, photographs taken by employees of the U.S. federal government are in the public domain. There are a handful of other exceptions.

We do have some limited exceptions for

Non free images, one of which seems to apply here. Non free portraits of people who have died are allowed, if no free one is available. It must be a lower resolution version. Please read that link, and follow those instructions carefully. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

01:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This person in dead, and this was in a public magazine. Do I have any chance of contesting this? I really would like to add her art to the article.Tractatus11 (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that she is dead is highly relevant. The fact that the magazine is "public" is completely irrelevant. Photos published in magazines are almost always copyrighted. Please read

WP:NFCI #10 as I suggested above, and upload the photo to Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons) with a fair use rationale on that specific, narrow basis. Do so if and only if your article is accepted to the main space of the encyclopedia. Such images are not allowed in draft articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

01:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

How does

WP:NFCC apply to Draft space? Do you know offhand Cullen³²⁸? --NeilN ^{talk to me}

01:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, the policy says "Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions." My understanding is that the exemptions are administrative pages where borderline cases are analyzed. Draft articles do not fall under such an exemption, as far as I know. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

NeilN Just wanted to say Cullen328 is right (as usual). There are bots that monitor sandbox and other draft pages and if you have a picture in there that is only licensed for specific articles the bot will delete those images from the draft files. That happened to me when I was working on some articles about a musician and his albums. Also, while I'm at it Wiki Kudos to Cullen328 and Timtrent for your amazing patience and politeness dealing with this user. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't know whether the website or magazine paid for bringing the photo, or got permission from the copyright holder, or broke copyright or something else. Being in a magazine does most definitely not mean that others can freely copy a photo. In a below section you wrote "I went through the upload image wizard process, and I believe it said if an image was already used in a magazine it was public, and okay to use on wikipedia". The upload wizard says no such thing. A Google image search on Emma Bee Bernstein gives many results so a free photo might easily exist and then we cannot claim fair use with no free alternative. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You are correct,

WP:NFCI #10, and possibly #7 if it is a self-portrait representative of her style as a photographer, but not more broadly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

01:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Tractatus11, here's what I suggest. 1) Get your article approved for mainspace. 2) Look for pictures of the subject which are not copyrighted (i.e., have a free license). 3) If you can't find one, post to my talk page and I will help you upload an appropriate fair use photo. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. 'Fiddle Faddle' just went on my page and wrote a long-winded, full-of-shit explanation of why my subject is not notable, and 'Huon' just deleted my photo (Not to mention the two other 'ppl' ho mangled my article in the draft stage.) So we'll see if it makes it to the main page. I should have just written it without going through this (misogynist) reviewing process, but it was my first article and I was glad to take constructive criticism and wait. Ha ha. Thanks, everyone. Lovely bunch. Thanks for pissing on Emma Bee Bernstein's graveTractatus11 (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If you will take on board the criticism you have been given instead of lashing out at all and sundry you will stand a far better chance of the draft being accepted. You have work to do. Find more references that prove her notability and you are home, free. Notice that you are the only one who has been abusive here. Everyone else is remarkably patient with you, and trying to guide you forward. So please do the research and add the references that meet the stated needs. I did note your abuse aimed at me. I have ignored it. Fiddle Faddle 02:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

How do you make a Contents box in an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKA Casey Rollins (talk • contribs) 16:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

table of contents is produced automatically. --ColinFine (talk

) 19:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Can I as a new Wikipedian add speedy deletion tag to illegal articles? If yes, then how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snehanshu Phukon Assam (talk • contribs) 17:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

Speedy deletion. --ColinFine (talk

) 19:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to work on this entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_History_Sites_(U.S._National_Park_Service)#Park_units

It needs a lot of work, but the first major change would be separating the information on significant women employees of NPS (which I think is problematic all by itself) from the list of NPS sites that address themes in women's history (there too there is already confusion about *sites* and places listed on the National Register but not open to the public, but that's another story). These should be created as two separate entries, but I've never made a change of this magnitude to someone else's entry and could just use some advice/input. Do I just pull the first half out and create it as a new entry, something like "NPS/Notable Women?"

Mrmedit (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings @

Talk:Women's_History_Sites_(U.S._National_Park_Service) Proposing to create a new article and then after a few days just be bold and do it if no one objects. --MadScientistX11 (talk

) 15:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the most relevant information can be found at Wikipedia:Splitting. Deor (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Deor: thanks very much, yes that's even better. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this, both for confirming my sense of the material, and for direction to the article on splitting.Mrmedit (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to get the small non profit I work for onto Wikipedia. Am I allowed to create the page myself or am I took close to the subject matter? If I am too close how do I go about finding someone to create a page?

OutrunTheSun (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The answer depends upon how well you can write in a neutral manner about the organisation. The best advice is to go to

WP:CORP start out by giving that serious thought. Fiddle Faddle

19:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello,

notable

(in a special Wikipedia sense), which means roughly that several independent reliable sources (such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers) have thought it worth writing about already. Your characterisation as "a small non profit" suggests to me that this will not be the case, though it might.

My advice to you would be to find several reliable published sources, independent of your organisation, which have written about it at length. If you cannot find these, then don't waste your time: no article about it will stick at present. If you find the sources, then either post a request at requested articles, with the sources, and wait, probably several months, for somebody to be interested enough to write about it; or, if you want to have a go yourself, use the articles for creation process, disclose your connection on your talk page, and be prepared for reviewers to be merciless when you eventually request a review. --ColinFine (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I would also chime in here with a bit of additional advice. Having reviewed many WP articles submitted for publication what I often see is that even when an organization has enough substantial coverage to meet the standards of

WP:CORP they create an article that is written like a promotional piece or a pre-paid magazine article and give far too much coverage to non-notable details and praise. So if you do write an article, make it short, simple and to the point. Then cut it back by another 30% and submit it for publication. Remember this is an encyclopedia not magazine. Good luck.-- — Keithbob • Talk

• 21:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

hello,primehunter can i create any type of templates?will they also be deleted as like as articles are deleted?Jojolpa (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jojolpa: This is a general help page with many helpers. There is no reason to ask for a specific editor in a new question. If you have a question for me personally, for example because it involves past edits by me, you can contact me directly at User talk:PrimeHunter. There are different policies for articles and templates. Templates can be deleted per general or template criteria at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, or after a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. If you tell what the template is intended for then we may be able to say more. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am a first-time article creator. My article Draft: Marco, Inc. was deleted because of ambiguous advertising.

I had external links to the company's Facebook, Twitter, Blogs, and YouTube pages. I am wondering if that is what the ambiguous advertising refers to and hence, why the article was deleted?

If so, I am 110% okay with taking those sections out and making the proper changes. I am just not quite sure what part of the article they referred to when talking about the ambiguous advertising.

Is there any way to restore my deleted article or do I have to re-start all over again?

Thank you. St. Cloud (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:REFUND

. That tells you how to get the draft restored so you can work on it some more.

As for the "ambiguous advertising", I assume the person said "unambiguous advertising". That means the person clearly believed the article to be promoting the company. It's not the sources you used, although those are not ideal. It is the tone of the article. Wikipedia requires a

independent reliable sources.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions

 • 22:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Last Monday, 14 Oct 14, I drew the "short straw". On behalf of my former-class-mates and members of the former pupils of the long-closed King Alfred School, Plön (Wyvern Club). As I am a Wiki-novice, so I am sure my draft entry requires editing etc. How do I find out the progress and acceptability of my draft? MikeWyvern4859 (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello! You can submit it to "Articles for creation", where professionals will look over your entry to see if it is good for Wikipedia. They will tell you what they think about the article as soon as they are done looking. You can submit your entry by editing the entry and adding '{{subst:submit}}' (without quotes) to the top of it. I hope this was helpful to you! Philroc^{My contribs} 13:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Philroc, Thank you for your prompt and helpful reply and advice. I am about to follow it. Once again, thank you. MikeWyvern4859 (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! Philroc^{My contribs} 16:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

We actually don't have professionals here. Just experienced volunteers.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware that the tune to "Red River Valley" was used by the Abraham Lincoln Battalion of the XVth International Brigade as their song "The Valley of the Jarama" during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939)?. I find it hard to believe that Ford and Steinbeck were not aware of this as the Abe Lincolns were an important cause in Hollywood. I wonder if there is any record of any connection99.133.162.158 (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@

Wikipedia is not a forum. Regards. KJ ^Discuss?

11:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If this is a question about content, post in Talk:Red River Valley (song). Click on "New section" at the top.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This page here:

Welcome to the Teahouse,

Prince William, Duke of Cambridge vs. Prince William, Duke of Gloucester. I changed the erroneous link to Jeanne of Albret, Countess of Dreux. RockMagnetist(talk

) 21:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank You! --Robin McNally (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@

piped link like [[Jeanne of Albret, Countess of Dreux|Jeanne of Albret]] to produce Jeanne of Albret. I don't mind displaying the long name in this example. PrimeHunter (talk

) 22:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I did wonder if that was a possibility but I wasn't sure if it was a good method to use for pages not created yet, since it may not be clear what the title of the article will be when created. I will keep both in mind in the future.--Robin McNally (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Can someone delete the articles amazingest and bestest? I don't know how -- Annonymus User 1000 (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:AFD process. KJ ^Discuss?

11:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Well it wasn't deleted when I asked this question... I'm just glad that it is deleted. -- Annonymus User 1000 (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• File:Amit ghimire

Kool.amit65 (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kool.amit65, welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:Uploading images, but see also Wikipedia:Notability (people). PrimeHunter (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

For article Roman Catholic Diocese of Superior the diocese website appears in 2 places

1. infobox on the right side
2. in section External links

Is is OK to remove the second one in Ext. links?

Should I put a reason on the article's Talk page lest another person will Undo the change?

Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings JoeHebda, welcome to the teahouse. This is a judgement call. IMO redundancy is not always bad. Just because the URL shows up in two places in the article doesn't require that one of them is deleted. My feeling would be that the web site is very relevant to the article and hence it's fine to have the URL both in the info box and external links. But I don't edit pages on churches or similar organizations so I don't know what the accepted standard is and you may be right. I would definitely suggest starting a new section on the talk page and raising the question there before you do the edit. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the quick response...the more I think about it, yes it seems best to leave the wikilink in both places. As long is as this is one of those gray areas, might as well just leave it.

There does not appear to be any standard way of writing these.

Thanbks! JoeHebda (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally I feel its overkill to have it in two places and there is no requirement that it be in both places. However, there is no policy against it either and in most articles it is listed in both the infobox and EL.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually there is a policy. It's called

WP:OVERLINK. According to this policy the words understood by most readers shouldn't be wikilinked.Usually a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.--Chamith (talk)

17:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is the correct guideline for wikilinks, but this discussion is about URL's appearing in both the infobox and external link section which have their own guidelines. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh! I thought he was speaking about wikilink when he said external links because he said "yes it seems best to leave the wikilink in both places". Pardon me if I didn't answer your question correctly JoeHebda--Chamith (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm having a difficult time with a single purpose editor whose strategy for ownership of an article is to attack and harass anyone who changes it. Recently they have begun attacking me and continue to attack despite warnings by myself and another editor on their user talk page. At this point some Administrator intervention is needed. Posts at ANI can create a lot of drama and become convoluted so I'm hesitant to bring it there. It seems like a very straight forward case to me. One that an individual Admin could handle efficiently without a lot of drama. Should I use the Admin help template on the offending editor's talk page? Or is there an Admin here who would be willing to look at the situation here and advise me? Thanks in advance. — Keithbob • Talk • 15:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Keithbob: I actually had a very similar situation to deal with myself recently where I did not desire to go to ANI or other public forum. I find it's best to go to an admin you trust and explain the situation to them using the "E-mail this user" feature on the lefthand side. Most admins should have this enabled. Hope the situation is resolved soon. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice and encouragement. I've put a note on the page of an Admin who has been active here at Teahouse recently. Hopefully they will guide me along. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking wiki is the best place to put information related to public. But i didn't know the "power" of editors who can delete the articles with nonsensical reasons without doing a bit of research on their own.

If the editor thinks he knows better than the contributor, what is the point of making the articles editable? nirmal (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

HELLO Nirmal,welcome to teahouse. Wiki is not a place to promote individual company,business.why don't you make the article in your own sandbox and ask administrators for it's approval?Jojolpa (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

ok. (nirmal (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC))

Greetings Nirmaljoshi welcome to the teahouse. I think you may not understand how editing works here. There are a few restrictions (e.g., on pages that cover very controversial topics) but for the most part any editor can undo any other editor's work. That can be frustrating at first for new editors because your first few edits may all get reverted. It takes a while to learn what is good Wikipedia content, references, etc. So when another editor undoes your edit that just means they think your edit doesn't add to the article and/or your edit violates some Wikipedia policy. You don't have to just accept that you can open a dialog with the other editor. The best way to do that is on the talk page of the article in question. If they are watching the article they most likely will be watching the article talk page as well and will see any new comment you add there trying to debate an issue. Also, you can contact the editor directly on their personal talk page. You can leave them a message asking why they reverted your edit. BTW, look at the edit summary before you do any of that, depending on the edit sometimes it's possible to just put the reason for the reversion right in the edit summary. Hope that helps, if any of that is unclear feel free to ask a follow up question here or on my talk page: User_talk:MadScientistX11 Cheers! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your good answer. I wish all the users were like you who would explain before taking action.

(nirmal (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC))

Why is my user talk page different to everyone else's? E.g. Annonymus user's -- Annonymus User 1000 (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sad -- Annonymus User 1000 (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Your user talk page looks like most peoples, just messages and conversations. If however you are talking about your user page then you can customise that pretty much how you want. If you want some ideas go to

Wikipedia:User page design center to see what can be done and more importantly how to do it. But I'd suggest that at the same time you look at improving some articles as we all need to remember that Wikipedia is primarily an encylopedia not a social media site. Nthep (talk

) 07:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

[1]

thank you Voglioimparare3 (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is called an

redlink does. I suggest using the "link" template, formatted like this: {{link|it|Ugo Mursia Editore}} which yields Ugo Mursia Editore [it]. Happy editing! VQuakr (talk

) 07:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@

ill}} template, which will list the article as requiring translation and automatically remove the red link once that has happened.  Philg88 ^♦talk

09:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)