Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 796

Archive 790

←

Archive 794

Archive 795

Archive 796

Archive 797

Archive 798

→

Archive 800

So my article review was rejected due to no sources

My question is... upon only submitting factual statements that only I know about my own (registered) company [DAPULSE, LLC] How would I provide reference links to back facts only I know... if there isn't any links?

I simply want to state the facts of our founding and roots and mission... that is all... can I get someone to review my article understanding this point I'm trying to make? if anyone can help me

Here is the exact sample of my article submission

Overview:[edit source]

DAPULSE is an American online publisher and curating site of articles for topics including, Technology, News, Entertainment, Science, Life Style, and more. DAPULSE was founded in January 01 2016, by a few students attending San Leandro High School.

DAPULSE was able to run for the entire year of 2016 before it was discontinued due to lack of writers and contributors.

Following the discontinuation of the site... Alejandro M was able to focus the entire year of 2017 to rebrand and plan a relaunch for the new site.

On January 01 2018 DAPULSE was relaunched with a new site design and a different plan in mind in order for the site to succeed this time around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Officialdapulse (talk • contribs) 06:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Officialdapulse, welcome to Wikipedia. I removed the email address from your text, as we try to avoid broadcasting those.

The short answer is that there is no way your organisation can have a Wikipedia article, I'm afraid. First of all, everything needs sources and if there are no good sources, Wikipedia can't write about it. This is a non-negotiable core part of how Wikipedia works. We can only write about the things reliable sources have already written about elsewhere. Second, there's also the concept of notability, which means that there should be a general public interest (here codified) for us to have an article. Third, because you have a conflict of interest – between writing a neutral article and describing your own organisation – you should not write about things you have created yourself. /Julle (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

How to win an edit war?

Hi everyone!

I just got blocked for 3 days for “edit warring” on one of my favorite articles, so I’m taking another try. I’m very new to Wikipedia so I’m still catching up on all the techniques. I was just hoping a more experienced editor could share some tips that might help me win my next edit war so I don’t get blocked again? Thanks! Totemwood (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

You don't "win" edit wars; you shouldn't participate in them at all. Adam9007 (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Totemwood: - your block log is empty, so any block was not applied on this account. If you created a new account following the block, you are engaging in sockpuppetry and block evasion, both of which are serious violations of Wikipedia policy, and merit further punishment. If you are engaging in this activity, and wish to participate in editing Wikipedia in a remotely constructive fashion, declare your previous account, stop editing for the duration of the ban, learn the lesson, and avoid edit wars - you don't "win" them, and your current course of action is a shift in the wrong direction, and will result in serious sanctions and blocks if not remedied. Hope this helps, and I suggest heeding the advice offered by myself and User:Adam9007 if you are truly here to enhance Wikipedia. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Totemwood Hi, You have only 2 edits so far and both were messages to Teahouse. You must have created a new account which we would not know which article or the context of the edits you were make on the account of "edit warring" - so do provide your previous user name and article anme. However, to say that, editor is strongly discouraged to participate in edit warring, please do not participate in such activities, instead invite the involved editors to article talk page and see consensus outcome, resolving the issue there. If issues cant be resolve you could bring the issue to noticeboard. However, without knowing what is the real issue here, we cant advice you which noticeboard to go to. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds: I thought the purpose of a block wasn’t to punish an editor, but to safeguard the project? Does Wikipedia have a punishment policy? Totemwood (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of the block was to stop the edit warring. You need to pay attention to what others have posted here about socking. MarnetteD|Talk 00:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Totemwood: What was the article where the edit war happened? That would provide some context to let me figure out what could be done there. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I forget what the article was exactly. There was also a “SPI” thing opened up by the person who won the edit war (and I think that’s how he won actually). Totemwood (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Totemwood: - blocks are intended to safeguard the project from people seeking to undermine it. Such as yourself. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• OP blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Confusion about editing or creating a profile

Hello, As a new user, I have difficulties formatting the citations for my first addition to a page and I have done some editing which was removed because of doing that on a category which is Educator stubs. Now can anyone help me about the procedure of making edit and from where should I start? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.83.160.49 (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP user 203.83.160.49. You have only one edit so far with this IP address, have you considered creating an account? It's free and you can choose a unique user name. Editing with an IP address could quite possibly reveal your physical location. Please read: WP:Benefits. I don't know which article you're referring to regarding your edits that were reverted, but there are several pages that a big help to new users such as yourself such as: WP:CITE that help you get started with citations. Please remember to sign your posts at the Teahouse and on talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~ Coryphantha Talk 12:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

New Article

Hello, thank you for your support. I submitted my new article second times, but it was rejected. I don't know why and the reviewer said it is promotional? I didn't make promotion, and the subject is surely valuable for the wikipedia article. Please help it not deleted and submit well. the topic is 'TeRra magazine'. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomashappyday (talk • contribs) 02:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thomashappyday: "is the world premiere English magazine" is promotional language. Articles should be written in such a way that even people who hate the subject can agree with the basic facts.

If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here are the steps you should follow:

1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.

4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

6) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that at least half was copyvio explains the promotional nature of the draft. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow, really? The parts I looked at read like machine translation. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

How do I redirect an article

Hi! You can understand me for redirect an article. --🌀ARGOSBETA24🌀 17:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArgosBeta24 (talk • contribs)

Hello, ArgosBeta24. No, I'm afraid that I can't understand you. Please explain more clearly what you want to do - and it will be helpful if you tell us exactly which article this refers to: it is much easier to understand and reply to questions when they are specific rather than general. --ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi ArgosBeta24, and welcome! To redirect a page to another article, you can use #REDIRECT [[Article you want to redirect to]]. If you're using the visual editor, there's a short explanation here: Wikipedia:Redirect#Using VisualEditor. /Julle (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Black holes in space

If you drilled a hole through earth and jumped down it you would not fall out the other side but go up and down like a yoyo.There you would be surrounded by gravity pulling you apart.Similarly the atom at the center of a black hole would be torn apart resulting in an atomic chain reaction resulting in a super nova.?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.0.7 (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. The Teahouse is for questions about editing Wikipedia. Please try the Reference desks for general questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Userbox page is SUPER broken, unsure what to do!

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Travel-3#Other_travel_userboxes

I was adding some userboxes today but I noticed when I go to this page, it's a lot of Template:ubsk spam. Is the page simply broken? Was a revert possible? I'm not advanced enough to figure this out.--MattBinYYC (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi MattBinYYC. The page is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. This means transclusions are not performed after the limit is reached. Pages which should have been translcuded are just linked instead. We have Wikipedia:Userboxes/Travel, Wikipedia:Userboxes/Travel-2, Wikipedia:Userboxes/Travel-3. Some of the last should probably be split to a new Wikipedia:Userboxes/Travel-4. People really love to tell where they have been. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Contesting a source - how does this work?

I am currently fixing up an article and came across this being referenced as a source and I cannot find the information anywhere else. It seems to be anonymously written with a source that has nothing to do with the info provided. Other sites list a myriad of reasons as an answer to the question but nothing to do with Jack Tar or sailing, or anything about Swansea producing sailors that were automatically hired. I feel like this should be removed as it seems the person who wrote the answer was unaware Jack was used as an identifier for the common people and thus drew false connections, but I don't know if there's some sort of process I have to go through to do this? Can I just remove it and say in the edit description why? Is there a Wikipedia court where I have to argue my reasons? Thesoftskeleton (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)TheSoftSkeleton

If the source is not compliant with our policy on reliable sources, then it can be removed without issue. In the example above, the site's answers are user-generated, so it fails as a source, and can be removed per WP:BOLD. If you are unsure, pose a question at the noticeboard to determine whether or not the source is reliable, or use the talk page to discuss this with other editors. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Aside from the good reasons given above, I notice that the source in question does NOT say that the suggested explanation is true, merely that it exists, but also that a completely different explanation also exists. It is possible that both, either or neither are actually partially or wholly true (as is common for such folk myths), but as corroboration of historical facts it's worthless. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.113 (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

How to Write an Article

Hey I'm new to wikipedia. Trying to learn about it. Could anybody tell me how to write an article. Mahesh Bisht 08:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalMahesh95 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

[[User:DigitalMahesh95}DigitalMahesh95]] I've left some more information on your talk page for you, this will help you to familiarize yourself with how to edit. After catching up on the reading a good place to start is to edit about subjects you're familiar with. May I also suggest you take a peek at Wikipedia's Manual of Style which is a great guide on WP's style. Coryphantha Talk 13:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks [[User:Coryphantha}Coryphantha]] Mahesh Bisht 07:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalMahesh95 (talk • contribs)

i want to write article new page but good in english

i have some knowledge about a body builder who won mr world championship in 2011 many people search him and want to know about him but his profile is not on wikipedia

am not good in english to write new content from old content how it can be possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishalgarg85 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vishalgarg85. Please read and study Your first article. If you write an article that complies with our policies and guidelines, other editors can assist you with grammar and English usage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Need tips because my page doesn't meet wikipedia guidelines

Hi there!

I tried publishing a page, but ws told that it does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines. could I please get some assistance on how to edit it?

Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhu.satish7 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Sindhu.satish7 Welcome to Teahouse. You have written your article in your user page instead of draft page. Please use the Article wizard to post the draft and wait for approval. However, at the current stage, the draft copy would not be approved as the notability of the subject have not yet been established. The content claimed needs to be supported by reliable source that are independent from the subject (secondary source) such as source from major newspaper and journal. Wikipedia can NOT be used as the source as it is not reliable - kindly see WP:CIRCULAR. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I have deactivated the confirmation mail received from wikipedia by mistake, how can I activate MailID ?

1) I have deactivated the confirmation mail received from wikipedia by mistake, how can I activate my MailID ? 2) I have published my draft and it is also reviewed by other users but still it appears in draft why it is not getting published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by T Nadar Suresh (talk • contribs) 09:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi T Nadar Suresh, welcome to the Teahouse. You can request a new confirmation mail at Special:Preferences. Draft:AlphaEx was declined as the message says. A draft is only published in the encyclopedia if it is both submitted and accepted. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Why my article is not published?

How to publish and (find) then edit mistakes in my article?

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Adloonix/sandbox

Why my article is not published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adloonix (talk • contribs) 09:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

There are several reasons:

Firstly, it is published in the sense that anyone can access and read your sandbox. It has not yet been considered for conversion to an article because you haven't submitted it. I'm not going to tell you how to do so, because . . . .

Secondly, it is written in very poor English. This could be corrected by native English speakers but . . . .

Thirdly, it has been marked for Speedy Deletion because it seems mainly to exist to promote a subject, without giving significant facts about it or demonstrating why it is notable. If you do not follow the clear instructions to contest the deletion it may be removed soon.

Fourthly, its (limited) relevant content is mostly covered more fully within the existing article Marketing strategy.

Fifthly, it has no Reliable Sources at all. All of the citations you have inserted are to other articles in Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles can never used as citations, because Wikipedia content is user generated and therefore not a Reliable Source. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.113 (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

New posting

Hello I am a newbie to Wikipedia, as you will see from my question! I wish to publish a page about a new up and coming actor. I have prepared a draft page, but am struggling to publish Any pointers please for a non technophobe! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSO663 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@NSO663: - having reviewed your draft, I have noticed several issues. Firstly, I suggest that you read this page about your first article for some tips. The draft you have written is insufficiently sourced, formatted incorrectly for submission, is an orphan, requires serious copy-editing, and may fail the general notability guideline and may not merit an article. Consequently, it requires a serious amount of work to comply with the rules of Articles for Creation. As such, read WP:YFA thoroughly, and apply its principles to your draft. Compare it to existing articles (many actors have featured articles that you can use as a comparison - Jennifer Lawrence and Jessica Chastain, for instance. As present, unfortunately, your draft is nowhere near ready. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

False Positive

How long does it take for a false positive to clear ? Also is the work i did saved, if i leave without publishing ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azhar0705 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Azhar0705: Your edits were rejected, as indicated by the "Actions taken:Disallow" in the log entries. I do not think there is a way to retrieve them. I have also fixed your report at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives/Reports#Azhar0705 (links were malformed). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  Incorrect part striken, per below. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Azhar0705: As an administrator I can see the attempted edit in the edit filter log. Normally you would have to attempt the edit or a similar edit later but I have copied it to a new edit which can be saved with my account.[1] There is a risk you will meet the same problem again on this article in your account. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm working to fix the filter so this won't happen again. Thanks, Crow^Caw 15:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

UBANK article

hello. I have an article declined - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:UBANK The reason is about sources. But ubank has lots of articles, depth coverage (not just mentions) in lots of medias for instance Forbes. How can it become better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svetlana Mikhaylova (talk • contribs) 17:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Hello and welcome Svetlana Mikhaylova. As the editor who declined the submission I apologize for not providing better detail about the issue. Some of the sources are not WP:RS. Others, like Forbes, are RS but contain only WP:ROUTINE information such as financial and transactional coverage. That said, I do think this is right on the edge of notability and you should not be shy about revising and resubmitting. Chetsford (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Hello

I’m the agent football for coach / Azima and I see on his wiki many think must edit And already he no have any English website as transfermarket or wiki in English show his info as coach and right now I have one club need looking for his data and I only found here in Arabic For that I wanna make editor asap to can got the opportunity for him as president club waiting my Information to make confirmation about his cv And all edit is true we not edited. Any wrong info

Thanks hope to help me ASAP for edit all to can complete my job

Also I wanna add his photo

Big thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamer ali 1977 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tamer ali 1977: As his manager, you have a conflict of interest and should not edit or write any article relating to Azima. You also need to disclose your employer on your user page. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Articles must cite multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the article's subject. For this reason, the CV is useless. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Hi, the journal I have been adding information to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Social_Behavior_and_Personality has the message "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." is there any way for this to be removed, it appears to be the only problem that needs to be cleaned up.

Thank you for your help.

Suzi — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuziBrown (talk • contribs) 02:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Someone affiliated with the journal decided to edit the article, and usually users of such accounts return under a different name (sometimes just two days after being blocked) with a focus on removing that tag. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I see she's added a paid contributor statement to her userpage. She works for the journal's publisher. Doug Weller talk 13:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I and another editor, not affiliated with the journal or its publisher, deleted about half the article to bring it more in line with NPOV for journals. I then deleted the COI. However, if journal staff or SuziBrown start adding more to the article, then consider restoring the COI. Given PAID relationshio, the appropriate path is for them to suggest changes at the article's Talk, and then a not-affiliated editor decide to incorporate or not. David notMD (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Article

Hello Editors

I am a Music Producer and i had recently posted an article on Wikipedia and submitted it for review, But unfortunately they couldn't accept the article, and i got this message which i am pasting below, I wonder if someone could help me in writing a better article, Which also would benefit me

Message received :

"This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time. "

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katrickmusic (talk • contribs)

Blocked. User name and behavior indicate singular focus on promotion rather than building the encyclopedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

My images are being deleted

I keep uploading an image for a page, and it gets deleted. Even though I own it. Is there a foolproof way to upload an image and it stay up on a page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzylebleu (talk • contribs)

@Lizzylebleu: If you are referring to File:Scott_Headshot_2016.tif, it was deleted because the image was not properly licensed. In other words, you have failed to prove that we can legally use that image. See c:Commons:Licensing for more information. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

MOS regarding first person accounts

In http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Blackwell_(historic_house)&curid=14635417&diff=848365111&oldid=822072437 an IP address user has added a section about the history of the building. However it includes a lot of first person accounts and personal opinions (and is unsourced). Are there any MOSs that I can point the user towards? --▲RedScrees (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I would refer the user to the policy WP:NOR. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

How to keep bad articles from being created?

Hi. I’m wondering how I can prevent bad articles from being approved for creation? Is there a vote or something? I’ve been following a user here for a while and noticed a pattern of empty fluff edits, then content addition with fabricated sources. Unfortunately it looks like this editor is now trying to create articles, apparently hoping that reviewers won’t see through the overall good composition into lack of substance and bogus sources. Troysprose (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you concerned about User:Wings Over the Rockies? It looks like that user successfully created one article, and then the second article was declined. I don't know that any additional action is needed. Why do you say the sources are fabricated? Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Correction: He has created a draft, which I just denied as not meeting ORG, and being an unneeded content fork to the article that is eponymous with his username, and uploaded a file (with no indication of permission or proper license) to use on that draft, which will likely be deleted soon. I've also reported him to UAA. John from Idegon (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

That being said, I have to ask why Troysprose has created an account which has only been used so far to pick at this issue? Care to explain? John from Idegon (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello and research question

Hello friends,

My name's Brent, I'm a total beginner at Wikipedia editing and just wanted to say hello, nice to meet you, etc. etc. I'm hoping to make a hobby out of this, and I'm hoping to be part of this community.

I'm working on my first edit and am hunting down some information for an infobox. I'm having some difficulty finding what I'm looking for and so my question is: is it appropriate to email the organization that owns the building to get these pieces of info?

Thanks, Brent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbejot (talk • contribs) 02:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bbejot: Hi Brent. Email correspondence is not a reliable source, because it's not published and so not verifiable for the rest of us. A subject's own claims also have problems relating to reliability. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomsom: Thanks for your reply! So if I'm understanding things, it looks like I would need to find the information from a reliable secondary source. If that doesn't exist or cannot be found then the preference is to not publish it, rather than rely on weaker sources. Reading more, it appears that the website of the organization owning the building would not qualify as a secondary source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbejot (talk • contribs)

@Bbejot: Pretty much. The organization's website might be an appropriate source for certain information, if it's for claims about only about themselves that are not promotional and not contested (e.g. what year the company was founded in). Also, please sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello Bbejot and welcome to the Teahouse.

When information is not likely to be controversial, we sometimes take it from primary sources. Another possibility is to contact the organization to ask if they can point you to a published source. I'm always a bit leery of editors contacting the subjects, and you still have to evaluate whether anything they give you can be considered a reliable source, but nothing that I know of forbids it. But, yes, we would much rather leave information out than publish something which can't be properly verified. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bbejot. The website of a building that is the subject of a Wikipedia article is considered a self-published source. Our core content policy Verifiability allows limited use of self-published sources, as follows:

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

In my opinion, information from their website such as construction date, architect, number of stories, square footage and so on would be acceptable. Evaluative claims that the building is luxurious, beautiful, innovative and so on would not be acceptable for inclusion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

All, this is good information and gives me a way forward. I'm sure I'll be asking questions on here frequently. You've been very helpful! Bbejot (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

allegedly didn't fit WP:POLITICIAN criterion

Hi. I'm trying to make a wiki page for the first time. I am trying to make a page for a Congressional candidate. I read the rules regarding WP:Politician and I disagree with the editor's decision, making me believe I must have have done something wrong. I understand that not ever elected official qualifies, but Aftab Pureval does. In the neutrally worded article I link to many articles in large, respected media outlets that should suffice.

What more can I do to prove that this person, who is the Clerk Of Courts in one of Ohio's largest county's and running for Congress, qualifies for WP: POLITICIAN?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickGCain (talk • contribs) 14:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The article as you edited is anything bu neutral. It reads like a campaign ad for Aftab Pureval. If there had not been a redirect to revert to it probably would have been nominated for deletion using WP:G11. I would suggest you start an article in the Draft space, such as Draft:Aftab Pureval. Then get it reviewed to get feedback. ~ GB fan 15:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• @PatrickGCain: I will also add that you likely need to read our guideline about conflicts of interest, and that running for Congress brings no notability in itself (it may generate press coverage which it turns shows notability, but running is not in itself notable). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes i saw that running for congress isn't enough, but the accomplishments and offices held and accolates should suffice for the barrier of entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickGCain (talk • contribs) 18:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, the accomplishments and offices held by this individual do not, in fact, suffice. Chetsford (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft deleted as strictly promo. John from Idegon (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Aftab Pureval has had a lot of political "buzz", but nothing that makes him notable; his current position will not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Unless there's substantial coverage (beyond the normal amount for competitive US House races) outside of the Cincinnati area and political sources, that is unlikely to change before November. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Post article on wikipedia

I am Enes part of the team that edits portal cazin.net. I published an article about cazin.net on wikipedia. However, the article was rejected.

Can you help me to fix the article to be accepted.

This is an article http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Cazin.NET

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckycazin (talk • contribs) 06:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Luckycazin and welcome to the Teahouse.

I've left a message on your talk page about conflict-of-interest editing. It's important that your connection with the subject you are writing about is diclosed.

Your article was declined because you did not include any references that establish the notability of Cazin.NET. The concept of notability, in the somewhat peculiar sense it is used on Wikipedia, is often hard for new users to grasp. In order for us to have an article about a subject, we need to see in-depth coverage published by writers who are independent of the subject. Since we cannot write an article based only on what the subject says about themselves, the article must be mainly sourced from this independent coverage. The fact that Cazin.NET is one of the most-visited sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina probably means that notability can be established. You are allowed, if necessary, to use references not in English or not published on the web (but doing so may severely limit the set of reviewers who can pass the article).

I hope this is not discouraging news. You may benefit from reading your first article or referencing for beginners to get some of the basic concepts of how Wikipedia articles are to be written. If you get some references together that you think establish notability, my recommendation is to take them to the Articles for Creation Help Desk and discuss there whether or not they do so and the details of your argument for notability. A discussion there forms a record than can be pointed to when you update the draft to include this additional information. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Finding Consensus on an Article

I recently made a minor-edit on an article, and provided a proper citation. The material matter was relevant, and I gave an explanation of why. However, my post was taken down. The person who took it down warned me of vandalism and threatened that I may lose editing privileges. I am knew to Wikipedia was unsure why. It said to go to the page's talk section, so I did. Incidentally, others had tried to make the same edit I did, but each time were shut down by this specific user. He claimed on my talk page that there was consensus, but he was the only one defending his position, and multiple others wanted change. How do I challenge him for vandalism or defend that there is a different consensus? He seems to have a political bias (which makes sense given his positive opinion of this specific politician outlined on his user page) and may not be looking out for the most neutral position for Wikipedia to have on the article. Others brought up similar usages of the phrase on other articles, which he said he did not take down because of how much he disagreed with the politics of those people. I am actually kind of shocked to find a political bias on Wikipedia, but whatever. Also, is there anything about using terms consistently with how they are defined on their own wikipedia article and/or other articles? Thank you.Canijustedit (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)CanIJustEdit

Convenience link – this is about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Maproom (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Canijustedit: Labelling a politician as "far-left" or "far-right" is a common device of opponents (the implication being that they are an extreme and fringe lunatic). Such labels are generally controversial and best left off articles in most cases, or at least not stated in Wikipedia's voice but attributed to the sources. In the talk page discussion NBauman pointed to the manual of style that says we should avoid contentious labels, but I think the more relevant guideline is WP:BIO (shorter version: we should avoid saying any stuff that could be viewed as bad about living persons without ironclad sourcing). I believe the standard for "far-left" or "far-right" sourcing is scholarly commentaries (i.e. by multiple political historians, not by editorials or the like), though I cannot find the guideline right now.

Also, notice that "consensus" on Wikipedia is never a vote: one well-reasoned, policy-based opinion trumps a thousand uninformed ones.

Finally, consistency between articles is usually a very weak argument, unless it was enshrined in a particular policy or manual of style entry. The reason is that Wikipedia is imperfect and contains lots of stuff it should not contain, so an argument from consistency by pointing to a mistaken article will result in the mistake spreading. (Consistency within articles, for date systems, UK/US spelling, metric/imperial units, etc. is a much stronger principle though.)

I will also mention that labelling as minor this edit, and any others restoring the "far-left" label, is an abuse of the "mark as minor" system. It should only be used for absolutely uncontroversial edits (think typo corrections, aligning images and the like; even correcting US to UK spelling or the reverse would be considered non-minor in some cases). If you thought the far-left label was uncontroversial, now you are aware it is not, so please refrain marking such edits as minor. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Tigraan. Canijustedit, I think there's a typo in Tigraan's response that could be confusing; I'm pretty sure they meant to write "If you thought the far-left label was uncontroversial, now you are aware it is not". Bishonen | talk 09:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC).

Indeed, corrected. Thanks. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Bishonen:*@Tigraan: Okay thanks for the advice. I changed my opinion on the Ocasio-Cortes page, but I am still confused about the Stephen Miller. I was trying to bring consistency between the two, which I guess is not a Wikipedia policy, but anyways the argument used against me on Ocasio-Cortes is not being applied to the other article. And there was also a vote on that article to determine consensus. I don't want to do anymore editing on either of them, but as more experience people on Wikipedia could you guys go check out the situation over there?

Grand Ayatullah Syed Muhammad Yar Shah Naqvi Al Najafi

why my article submission are decline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naqvi syed512 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Naqvi syed512: Because it fails WP:GNG. Your draft has NO references to indicate that the topic is notable. The article also exists in mainspace, you may improve the article instead. I've just declined your submission again. Please familiarize yourself with WP:N, WP:CS, WP:RS, WP:MOS. You can also read WP:YFA and WP:REFB. Thanks. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 09:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Please correct typo in spelling of NEW YORK in the first line of your entry under "Annette Kolodny"--thanks!

current text-- Annette Kolodny (born 21 August 1941, New Yourk, N.Y., U.S.)

corrected text --Annette Kolodny (born 21 August 1941, New York, N.Y., U.S.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.177.104 (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2018‎ (UTC)

 Done by Julle in this edit. Deor (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP User and welcome to the Teahouse.

I just want to remind and admonish you that, in just the same way that you can leave a message here in the Teahouse, you are empowered to fix things like this on your own. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Akai Synth template / info box

Who is it that creates these

i think we desperately need one for Akai (synths, samplers and drum machines. At the moment theres only one main page for all things Akai and it very congested. Thanks Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Take a look and see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Akai Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ijustwannabeawinner: Anyone makes those. The page would be Template:Akai (like Template:Roland). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Shaik Sabeel Uddin

I want to create a page about myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sk sabeel uddin (talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear @Sk sabeel uddin: Welcome to Wikipedia. Creating pages or editing content about yourself is known as conflict of interest editing, which is strongly discouraged here on Wikipedia. Are your achievements are notable enough to qualify yourself for an article on Wikipedia? If so, please refer to wp:YOURSELF - a guideline regarding the creation of an article about yourself. Again, please understand adding or editing content about yourself is, for the most part, strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Zingarese (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

How can I find stubs to improve that match my knowledge?

I'm a new user and I want to find stub pages that I can improve, but that are on topics I know about. Do you know how I can find them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookipedia2001 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bookipedia2001 take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/List of stubs. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion is welcomed in a dispute/argument on the Incels article

After I removed a line from the intro of the Incel article, the reactions on the talk page got a little bit heated. I would like to invite fellow Wikipedians to weigh in on this, so we can resolve this peacefully.

Link to the Incel Talk page where the argument takes place.

The line in question was "In total, forty-five people have been killed in five events since 2014 by people who may be considered incels."

This bit of info is unreferenced, and possibly even original research.
It might also give undue weight. It is possible that the population of involuntary celibate men are more peaceful than the general population, in which case this line in the intro would be misleading to readers. Any insights would be welcome, thank you Amin (Talk) 08:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Amin: While I have no doubt your post is well-intentioned to attract more participation, its last paragraph goes against Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning. You should make your argument at the page where the debate takes place, but not in the notifications you send to other places. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tigraan: You're right. I can see why that rule makes sense. Amin (Talk) 19:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello Amin and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please to do not come to the Teahouse to ask for editors to "weigh in" on a content dispute. The primary purpose of the Teahouse is to serve as a place for new editors to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia. That is a big enough job that we need to avoid distracting sections here. There are WikiProjects and noticeboards where you might be able to post a request, or you could set up an RFC, which is the more formal way to seek a broader consensus. Please heed the advice at WP:CANVAS. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: My apologies. It won't happen again. Amin (Talk) 19:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Infobox for Ford Aerospace

Somehow the infobox at Ford Aerospace contains the website www.ford-aerospace.com but that is not listed or referenced anywhere within the article. Any ideas as to how to remove this? — Mr X ^☎️ 19:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mr X, welcome to the Teahouse. See Template:Infobox company#Parameters for documentation. The website is taken from Wikidata and can be suppressed with | website = hide. Click "Wikidata item" in the left pane to see where the website is stored. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info — Mr X ^☎️ 19:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

My page and why it keeps getting deleted

Dear friend, could you please look into my page and why it keeps getting deleted.

I'm contacting Wikipedia here, in the hope to right this very weird censorship - this situation has been going on for months. Can you take a look please, I have no recourse to these admins' instant deletions.

The latest deletion was of a text identical to a reform synagogue's page. The two organizations are same age and locations and the wording of the two pages was identical with only the dates and names changed. Still my page gets deleted.

My repeatedly deleted Synagogue Page is this one, my shul: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Westmount_Shul_and_Learning_Centre

The identical, reform Synagogue page that was not deleted, same text: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Temple_Kol_Ami_(Thornhill,_Ontario)

The page listing both the synagugoes in Toronto: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_synagogues_in_the_Greater_Toronto_Area

So what is the reason for the deletion? I've been getting deleted for different reasons for years now. The original articles I wrote had a lot of thought and detail put into them. And they just got deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scutarus (talk • contribs) 19:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Scutarus and sorry you are having problems. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social media site for listing organizations. To have an article an organization such as yours must already be well-known as shown by published works in reliable sources independent of the congregation or its press releases, such as books or newspapers. This usually means well-known for community or social activity or being an historic congregation. Most local congregations are not notable in that sense. We have articles from earlier days of Wikipedia when the requirement for notability and sources was not as strong, but that is not a reason for accepting new articles that do not meet the requirements. The one you mentioned is already proposed for removal. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying and it sounds good, but I feel I am being kept from writing about an organization that I know about needlessly. I do appreciate your explanation very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scutarus (talk • contribs) 20:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Uploading new business/nonprofit page

I am attempting to create a NEW wiki page on behalf of the Ford Motor Company Fund, which is the philanthropic arm of Ford Motor Company. Globally this organization invested more than $1.5 billion in 2017 and is a separate entity from the Ford Foundation.

I'm having a difficult time finding sources because the Ford Motor Company Fund is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit created by Henry Ford II in 1949, but has mostly press releases and self-evidence proving itself. Whereas the Ford Foundation for a variety of reasons has data backing it due to its affiliation with Henry Ford. I noticed that the Ford Foundation cites its own website within its wiki page. Do I have that ability to use quantify the Ford Motor Company Fund?

Is there a better way to go about adding this to wiki, perhaps it could be added to the Ford Motor Company page versus creating its own?

Any help editing the text below would be appreciated - we also have an image of the press release stating it's existence which is from the Ford Motor Company archives.

Proposed article text

Ford Motor Company Fund Ford Motor Company Fund (Ford Fund) is the philanthropic arm of Ford Motor Company. Established in 1949 by Henry Ford II, Ford Fund is a charitable, nonprofit corporation financed by contributions from Ford Motor Company. Based in Dearborn, Michigan, Ford Fund has invested more than $1.5 billion in nonprofits and civic organizations worldwide with a focus on Education, Safe Driving, Volunteerism and Community Life. Ford Fund supports nearly 700 nonprofit organizations that feed the hungry, enhance emergency response, provide disaster relief, assist military veterans, sponsor cultural programs, and celebrate the diversity that makes our communities stronger. Among Ford Fund’s signature programs is Ford Driving Skills for Life, a free, interactive, hands-on safety initiative focused on skill development and driving techniques, while addressing inexperience, distractions and impaired driving. Innovation in education is encouraged through Ford Blue Oval Scholars, Ford Driving Dreams, Ford Next Generation Learning and other programs that enhance high school learning, and provide college scholarships and university grants. The Ford Volunteer Corps enlists more than 30,000 Ford employees and retirees each year to work on local projects in more than 40 countries around the world. Ford Resource and Engagement Centers (FREC) provide basic needs, programs that promote jobs and economic growth, tax and legal assistance, and cultural activities. The concept has been to a second FREC in a Detroit middle school, and a FREC in South Africa. Ford Motor Company Fund (Ford Fund) is not affiliated with the Ford Foundation, a totally separate entity from Ford Motor Company. References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdunham6 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC) 

Hello, Sdunham6. I have collapsed your text above, as this page is not the right place for prsenting draft articles.

The main question is, does the fund meet the criteria for notability of organizations? If it does not, then there cannot be an article about it, period. I haven't looked closely at your citations, but it does not appear to me that they are anywhere near establishing this (as you yourself suggested). In particular, Wikipedia (being user generated) is not itself a reliable source, and can almost never be used as a source. We require that several people who have no connection with a subject have chosen to write about it at some length, and been published in a reliable place (somewhere with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control). That fact that something exists is emphatically not enough, however many sources can be found that demonstrate this.

You ask about adding information about it to the article Ford Motor Company instead: this is certainly a possibility, and requires less in the way of sources, as not every entity mentioned in an article (on an appropriately related subject) needs to be independently notable. Everything you say about it still needs to be verifiable from a reliable published source; but some of that might well come from non-independent sources such as Ford's or even the fund's own website: see PRIMARY for the limitations on what may be cited from such sources. I suspect that not all the detail you have given in your text above would be appropriate for a section in the Ford article, either because it cannot be adequately sourced, or because it is really peripheral to the subject of the article. But those are questions for consensus, and my suggestion would be that you post on Talk:Ford Motor Company suggesting the text you would like to add, and get consensus on it before you do so. (You are not obliged to do this: anybody may edit (almost) any article; but editors who are not familiar with how Wikipedia works often find their edits are quickly undone, and they then need to discuss them on the talk page to move forward anyway). --ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Reliable Source?

Hi, I was just wondering if anyone could clarify if it would be okay to use https://esports.hollywood.com/ in regards Overwatch League teams. Noting Misfits owns the Florida Mayhem.

It's specific to the following disclosure on their website:

Disclosure: Ben Spoont, the CEO of eSports Now, LLC which owns Misfits, is the son-in-law of Mitch Rubenstein and Laurie Silvers who are investors in eSports Now, LLC and the principal owners of Hollywood.com through a personal investment vehicle. Hollywood.com is independently operated and managed. Together, Ben, Mitch and Laurie are the majority owners of eSports Now, LLC. As further background, Mitch and Laurie previously founded SyFy Channel which they sold to USA Networks.

Am I correct in assuming as they state it's "independently operated and managed" it should be okay to reference them, including for the Florida Mayhem? or would there be affiliation issues (if true, would that be for all teams or just the Florida Mayhem)? Wiki nV (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Wiki nV. It seems to me that this affiliation makes this a non-independent source, so it can be cited for certain kinds of information only: see PRIMARY for the limitations. --ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Hmm, fair enough. Thanks for the response. Wiki nV (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)