Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 478

Archive 475

Archive 476

Archive 477

Archive 478

Archive 479

Archive 480

→

Archive 485

How to remove inappropriate category? Not listed in content

Greetings – At article Requiem the category Category:Arts and culture navigational boxes appears at the article bottom. When doing an Edit, that category does not show, so not possible to remove. Before asking here I have already done the "Purge" and searched TH archives for a possible solution. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. That Category is called up in Template:Death and mortality in art. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I have now put "noinclude" tags around the category call in the template, then purged the article, and the category no longer appears in the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks David Biddulph for fixing this as it is way beyond anything I would know how to do. I call it "wikicode magic". Cheers! :-) — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I need help desperately

I really need help making templates and userboxes for my new wikiproject because I have no idea how to do so. The project name is at the end of this post. Thank you very much. Ilikeguys21 (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Essential Oils

You say "Several Wikipedians have formed this collaboration resource...", so I suggest that you ask for help from some of those collaborators. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Ilikeguys21 – Chiming in with my two-cents worth, after looking at article Essential oil and the new WP page, I would suggest creation of an article List of essential oils and add the content from Wikipedia:WikiProject Essential Oils#Open tasks section. This might be a better way of improving the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Woops, article List of essential oils already exists. (edited my prev. posting) — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

What is correct way to include page numbers when using Named References?

I'm using 'Named References' several times while inserting inline citations with the RefToolBar (in my sandbox). It seems that I should include the book's page numbers if I'm using that reference several times. I notice that in the reference list, named references show up with 'a', 'b,' etc depending on how many times I've used a named reference. But, these letters don't show up on the inline citation. I think I need more advanced instruction on the using named references. Is there an extended explanation somewhere, or would someone please give me some guidance on the correct way to use the named reference tool? Thanks. Drvalsummers (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drvalsummers. I am not sure if there is any one correct way, but I believe you can use Template:Rp to indicate page numbers next to the footnote marker. There is also a little more complicated way which uses short footnotes. I believe Template:Harv works in most citation templates. An example of how this can be used in the "Cite Web" template is found at Template:Cite web#Anchor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the options Marchjuly mentioned are discussed here: Help:References and page numbers Gab4gab (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Changes Made to a rejected article and questions from a new editor

Hi! This is with regard to my article ' the label life' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarovaram11/sandbox It was rejected for 2 reasons sources and using peacock language. The reviewer then put it up here at the teahouse and stated that after a second look, the article appreared well sourced (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions&oldid=prev&diff=714416453) With regard to the peacock language, after i learned what it was, I made changes to the article to make it read neutrally. I would appreciate it if an experienced editor could take a look and let me know if it is sufficient?

With regard to his other questions: I am not associated with this company, and the title of the article is 'the label life' (how do I add this to my sandbox?)

I 'm putting this up as a new question as I'm not sure how to add to the original thread. If someone could guide me with regard to these matters, I would appreciate it very much!

Thanks Sarovaram11 Sarovaram11 (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Sarovaram11, I've moved the page to Draft:The Label Life All of your content and edit history is now moved that this page. I'm not an expert on which articles are approved through the AfC process so I'll let another editor help with that aspect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice that, to confuse the issue, the OP has created a different draft at Draft:The Lable Life [sic]. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sarovaram11. The text of your draft copies that of User:Elephantbaby4/sandbox which was created before you pasted it into both Draft:The Label Life and Draft:The Lable Life. Are you editing under two different accounts, Elephantbaby4 and Sarovaram11? If not, you cannot simply take another editor's work and copy it without attribution. That will have to be sorted out as well as the issue of your duplicate drafts. As to the current content, I think this would be unlikely to survive an articles for deletion discussion. As an Articles for Creation reviewer, I would not be inclined to accept it with the current sourcing. The company is less than 4 years old and while the puffery has been removed, the sources are almost exclusively based on press releases. In reaction to floods of articles masquerading as advertorials and almost exclusively written by paid editors or company employees, the standards for articles on businesses have been considerably tightened in the last year. Voceditenore (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Limited additions to a specific page.

I have available information, maps, and a copy of an original photograph relevant to the page "Caspar Samler farm." I don't contemplate doing any real editing otherwise. Is it best to contact one of the main contributors of the material and dump it on them; or have them walk me through it? Richard Carvill King (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Neither of the above. Improvements to Wikipedia should (with very rare exceptions) be coordinated on-wiki. That is the purpose of talk pages. Provide your edits at the article talk page, Talk:Caspar Samler farm. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Correcting a bad link on a page for my employer.

Hello, with full disclosure I'm an employee of Trustco Bank in Schenectady, NY. I have not been paid to monitor or edit the article. I'm honestly just a bored employee who decided to see what our companies wiki page says. I did notice one small inaccuracy. In the info box on the right of the article Trustco Bank the link to our CEO Robert J. McCormick links to a completely different Robert J. McCormick. This specific article says the Robert McCormick in question is dead. I can confirm that our CEO is currently alive and well I was at a company dinner with him last week. Also to my knowledge he has never lived in NYC or been a psychologist. I know I should not edit this article I just figured I'd point out an inaccuracy so someone could potentially fix it. Thanks. 216.136.44.62 (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

 Removed Hi 216.136.44.62 and welcome to the Teahouse. Per your request, I've removed the link to Robert J. McCormick, as it's not about the correct person. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Categories for fictional character?

Should a character be categorised as if it/they were a real person, e.g. "XXXXs births", "People from ......."? I was looking at Allan Gordon, which seems to be a bit of a hot mess, generally. Advice? Probability amplitude (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

No, fictional characters should not categorized with real people. They should instead be put into categories like Category:Fictional detectives and Category:Fictional characters introduced in 2016. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Editing Further Reading section.

Hello,

I used the cheat sheet entry [url name] to try and name my link in the Further Reading section of the Wikipedia entry for Coherer, but it did not work. Is there a trick I'm missing?

Regards, Tcuff231 (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Some stray tags got in there. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Live Setlist Editing?

I was wondering if the page for a concert tour should be edited as information is released regarding the setlist? TheKaphox (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

If it is covered in a Reliable Source, then you can add the new information. RudolfRed (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

review a draft

Could someone please take a moment to review this draft? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jeff_Cavins In the opinion of one of the hosts, since this is my first article, does this look like it would not be deleted upon completion? MJudeDunn (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, MJudeDunn, and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like a review has been requested using the appropriate template at Draft:Jeff Cavins. Drafts aren't generally deleted if they fail review. You will get plenty more time to work on it if the draft is not successful the first time it gets reviewed. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MJudeDunn. One significant problem that I see with your draft is the lack of coverage of Cavins in independent, reliable sources. Almost all of your sources appear to be controlled by Cavins or organizations he works for or is affiliated with. A minor problem is the repeated use of his first name. Our Manual of style says that we give a person's full name at first mention, and then use their surname after that. In conclusion, I have my doubts that Cavins is notable as Wikipedia defines that term. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between a draft being declined and a page (which may be a draft or an article) being deleted. A draft that is declined is sent back for further work, and may or may not be accepted later. Your draft is likely to be declined unless the subject can be established to be notable. I see no reason why it is at risk of being deleted, so that you will be able to continue working on it (but no promise is made that it will be accepted). The Articles for Creation process exists so that new authors can work on their drafts, with reviews, without being at risk of having them deleted, only declined. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

My article is not appearing - what do I do?

Hi - I created a separate page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atish_Paray_(Nuggets_of_Fire)_%E2%80%93_1936 which needs to link to the first title of Manto's bibliography section. I think this has also been reviewed. How do I get this live? Do I need to create a link again?Asif Darjeeling (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The article you created, Atish Paray (Nuggets of Fire) – 1936, is live. Its name should probably be changed. Here is the link that you want. Maproom (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the "1936". The book article is now at Atish Paray (Nuggets of Fire). We don't include publication dates in article titles unless we need to differentiate them from other ones. I'm not sure whether our style manual allows for the subtitle (Nuggets of Fire) to remain. I've also linked from the author's article. Rojomoke (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you had linked from the author's article, but I have so now. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help David. This is most helpful. I know it needs improvements and I am going to work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asif Darjeeling (talk • contribs) 11:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Asif Darjeeling. I believe that this book was written in Urdu, and your article should mention that at the beginning. Also, please consider how the title is transliterated. I see reliable English language sources that call it "Aatish Paray". And is "Nuggets of Fire" a subtitle, or a translation of the title into English? I have seen it rendered as "Fragments of Fire". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Cullen. Yes the book is indeed written in Urdu and I was not aware about the requirement of the language of publication to be mentioned. I shall do so. "Nuggets of Fire" is a translation of the title...I am following this as a cue from the main Manto page which carries no editorials from me. Therefore I have followed the same pattern. I think 'Nuggets of Fire' is still a more apt translation of the title than "Fragements of Fire." This is my first contribution (having failed a couple of times earlier) so I appreciate your guidance on this matter. Let me know what you think.Asif Darjeeling (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Can't find anymore all my pictures in the gallery...

If i try to add the same picture as before the system didn't accept.. there seems no option to "replace"? How can i find all my pictures already added and specially all there names? Thanks in advance.Creatordavid109 (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Files which you have uploaded to Commons, as distinct from locally to enwiki, are listed at commons:Special:Contributions/Creatordavid109. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

use of references

Hi I don't understand how references should be best used and to what extent. eg. on this page about the USA Judge Giles Rich there are no refs at all until the fourth section. I had understood hat every fact and every statement had to be verified with back-up ref/citation? can someone please help clarify? many thanks LondonCalling123 (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, LondonCalling123. As I understand it, not every fact needs to be referenced, just the most important, more controversial or harder the find facts. This is so that articles don't get overly cluttered. That being said, it's good the be bold in requesting more references. I would suggest adding a 'citation needed' to anywhere you think could use one. CheCheDaWaff (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The relevant policy here is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged needs to be attributed to a reliable, published source. Personally, when I am writing content I prefer to cite a source for everything but the most obvious of statements. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Editing the source

I was going to make an edit to a page, but the possibility to edit the source text seems to have dissapeared. What has happened? How do I go about to get back to the easy-edit format? Röd Boll (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

How strange, now it suddenly is there again! Röd Boll (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Röd Boll, welcome to the Teahouse. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing has an "Editing mode" field where you can choose which edit options to see. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Trouble removing SVG conversion banner

Hi, I'm relatively new the Wikipedia, and I like to contribute by creating vector diagrams. I've been doing a few SVG conversions but I've recently hit a stumbling block. For whatever reason, I can't remove the SVG conversion banner from the file pages of these images: File:Illustration to Euclid's proof of the Pythagorean theorem3.PNG, File:Trig Functions.PNG. Strangely, the relevant Commons page is editable and displays correctly, but when editing the Wikipedia file page, the text looks as if it's the same as the Commons page.

I have a similar problem with this page: File:Trig Functions 2.PNG where I can't seem to add a 'vector version available' banner.

I'm sure I'm missing something obvious here. Does anyone know what's going on? CheCheDaWaff (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi CheCheDaWaff, welcome to the Teahouse. The English Wikipedia page should update automatically from Commons but it didn't happen here for some reason. You haven't done anything wrong. The section edit links on the English page go to the Commons page. I was able to force an update of File:Illustration to Euclid's proof of the Pythagorean theorem3.PNG by purging commons:File:Illustration to Euclid's proof of the Pythagorean theorem3.PNG. It didn't work for File:Trig Functions 2.PNG and neither did a dummy edit of commons:File:Trig Functions 2.PNG. I suggest you just wait. The software should eventually catch up by itself. It works in other languages like simple:File:Trig Functions 2.PNG. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks very much, that's really helpful. CheCheDaWaff (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Need help and advice with writing an article to meet Wikipedias guidelines on notability.

I have recently had an article that I submitted to drafts reviewed and the reviewer has said that the article does not show that it meets with Wikipedias guidelines for notability. Please see article link here > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lee_Simmons

I have been advised that I can get help from The Teahouse in writing my article in order to solve this issue. I would really appreciate it if someone could advise with this and help in any way.

Many thanks in advance

Username: Lee James Simmons

Lee James Simmons (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The advice is in the feedback on your user talk page and in the draft. There are plenty of useful links. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Here are a few problems. First, the references are all so-called "general references", none of them in-line as footnotes or any other sort of in-line citations. In-line citations are required for all statements in biographies of living persons that might be challenged. What you have provided is simply a list of references, not even each on its own line. Second, the sections, as the reviewer alluded to, should be wikiheadings rather than just words (without even a line feed) preceding each section. Third, the overall tone is non-neutral and contains peacock language. I won't give one example, because if I did, you would probably revise it and resubmit it. It isn't surprising that the article has peacock language. It is very difficult to be neutral when writing about yourself. You may be able to fix the formatting of the references and the formatting of the headings and to put the references in-line. I have not reviewed whether providing proper references will establish notability. It might, but it probably won't. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Lee James Simmons: Please keep the following key concept in mind when you are writing any article on Wikipedia: We only write about what others have already written. Every fact or opinion you find in WP is based on what someone else, somewhere else, has written (or said if it was on audio/video media) -- never is it our own opinion or conclusion. For this reason we require every bit of text in an article to be supported by "good" sources. Good sources are verifiable and from reliable authors/publications and we also require that these sources, in as much as possible, are non-biased and unrelated to the actual article topic ("non-primary"). Naturally the more such sources are available, the easier it is to write a WP article and the converse is also true that few good sources make it very hard to write one. I hope this helps. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 14:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete or merge one of these articles

Hello Teahouse!

I was reviewing these two articles ( Conditioner_(chemistry) and Chemical_conditioning ) and they are essentially identical. How do I go about deleting one or the other (after I edit to merge content, of course).

Thanks! Lizzius (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lizzius, you don't delete one, you redirect it to the merged article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Lizzius: From the first article "Conditioning agents are also called moisturizers". From the second "Conditioning increases always the efficiency of water removal." I see no reason to think these articles are about the same thing. Maproom (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Maproom! I'd ask you to take a second look at the single source the article uses and compare that with your own knowledge of chemical conditioners. I obviously disagree (the sentence you quoted is presumably pulled from an abstract of a paper on waste treatment and is a very bad summary at that), but I will leave this discussion on the talk page of Chemical_conditioning per Wikipedia:Redirect. Lizzius (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The source cited by the second article is a book about sewage processing, where the objective is to separate the solids from the water, leaving the solids as dry as possible and the water as pure as possible. The first article is mainly about facecream. I would recommend deleting both. In any case, merging them would be a mistake. Maproom (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

My biography submission is being declined for lack of reference, but I have over 3 dozen

I'm being told https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Donald_Wallace_Gordon doesn't have valid references because they are on social media, the issue is these are older news footage, pictures of catalogs and letters and the like, so there isn't a native source on them, they've been created, but you watch the video, you see this is NBC News, or a talk show or the Special Olympics, all the links go to valid substantiation. There are links to 14 patents additionally with the US Patent Office search system, and I'm being told those are 3rd party links. It's like no one actually followed the links to see what the content was. This man was hugely influential, he revolutionized track and field, invented the Bounce House and hundreds of other products. His work has affected, literally, hundreds of millions of people over the decades. I have seen many biographies with little of note and poor sourcing, so I'm confused why I keep getting denied and could really use some help here. Thank you Smga3000 (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

If he was hugely influential, it ought to be possible to find some acceptable references. Youtube videos are not acceptable here, as anyone can post what he likes to Youtube, there is no editorial responsibility there. I have found this, but I don't know if obitsforlife is a reliable source. Maproom (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There's not actually a blanket ban on YouTube. If, for instance, the video had been uploaded by NBC themselves, then that could be an acceptable source. If it's been uploaded by someone else, though, then we can't use it as a reference as we're not supposed to link to copyright violations. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Patents can serve as references to substantiate certain claims made within an article. However, they aren't necessarily great indicators of the notability of a subject, as they discuss the subject's intellectual property as opposed to the subject itself. Additionally, patents are typically considered primary sources, as their holders generally author them themselves. ~ Erick Shepherd • (Talk) • 16:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft: CORGI HomePlan

I reviewed Draft: CORGI HomePlan and declined it, stating that the references were inconsistent and partially duplicated. User: Graememcg then wrote:

Thank you for the feedback on my submission for CORGI HomePlan. I would like to understand a bit more about what was meant by my references being inconsistent. Does this refer to anything in particular? What could improve the consistency of the references? Also, the references were referred to as duplicated. Again, are you able to provide specific examples of what you mean to help me refine this entry to the standard required?

The basic problem with the references is that there are two lists of references. There are 8 references listed in sequence at the end of the draft (without line breaks between them). Then there are another four footnotes. That is the inconsistency. Maybe the four references do not duplicate some of the eight references. In any case, please clean up the footnotes. I also see that the text that is meant to be in the article body for footnotes 1 and 2 isn’t in the article body, only in the footnotes, leaving the sentences fragmentary.

I haven’t checked whether the references establish notability of the company. Do any other experienced editors want to comment on the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Surely as part of the review process you can give the author pointers to relevant guidance, such as WP:REFB? --David Biddulph (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Please see referencing for beginners. In this case, I thought that it would be obvious from the draft that there was an inconsistency. However, referencing is the most difficult aspect of developing an article for Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

how to find answer to my previous question

I asked a question on this forum a couple hours ago (about my edit to narcissus plant), and now I'm not sure how to find if anyone answered. Doesn't appear to be in the archive... ? My handle is SkweeBeeDee.Skwee Bee Dee (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your contributions are at Special:Contributions/Skwee Bee Dee and there weren't any previous questions here, so perhaps you didn't save? --David Biddulph (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Skwee Bee Dee, welcome to the Teahouse. Special:Contributions/Skwee Bee Dee shows this is your first post here. Your earlier attempt must not have been saved. There is no account called User:SkweeBeeDee without spaces. Regarding your edit [1] to Narcissus (plant), it is not allowed to use other Wikipedia articles as references. And 4-28-16 is a disallowed date format. 2016-04-28 (yyyy-mm-dd) is allowed but it's recommended to follow the format of existing dates in an article. Here it would be 28 April 2016. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, Primehunter. I didn't want to use the other page as a source, really. I just want readers to be able to click on "USDA hardiness zones" in my edit and be taken to the wikipedia page about USDA hardiness zones. You know, the words turn blue but are not underlined and have no footnote, just hyperlink to another page, as is done frequently on many pages. How do I accomplish that please?Skwee Bee Dee (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

And I still don't know how to get back to this very place and see your resonce if I have to close this window...Skwee Bee Dee (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You can search (probably Ctrl F on your browser) for your user name if the message is still on this page. When it gets archived after a few days, put your user name into the archive search box on this page. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

If you add [[Hardiness zone]] to the page source you will get you this Hardiness zone on the page. Gab4gab (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

One way to get back here, Skwee Bee Dee, is to click on "Contributions" in the top-right of the page, and this page will appear amongst those that you have edited. You can click through to it from there. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Need help to achieve Neutrality

Dear Team, After performing several corrections on my article Draft:Purplehed_Records, I have received a feedback that it still has a pretty big neutrality/informalness issue. I have gone through guidelines on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view but I am afraid I am still not capable to fix it completely. I request to kindly guide me to correcct this issue. Thanks and Best RegardsCatrat999 (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Catrat999: I believe that the lack of neutrality and formality is because many of the subject's personal thoughts and feelings are included in the article. You wrote "According to" three or four times. If you do reference personal thoughts or quotes, I think it should be done sparingly. Here's a similar article to use as a model: Rostrum Records. Houdinipeter (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Onel5969, could you provide some examples of non-neutral text in the draft, since you declined it? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing Cordless Larry, although it was more than just a pov issue, it was also an informal tone to the article. Here are what I see as still being issues: "According to its creators, the song is about hope and dreams. It's about escaping from the bars and chains that stops one from realising their dreams." "According to Ashutosh, Dr Kalam's vision was the motive behind the single. Dr. Kalam, the late President of India, mentioned in his book India 2020 that "A developed nation is where education with a good value system is not denied to any meritorious candidates because of societal or economic discrimination", "As per Anurag, the video is to reignite the spirit of knowledge amongst the youth towards the cause of educated and developed India", "The act was directed and edited by Jackson Garg, who has also worked on the trailers of Bollywood movies such as The Lunchbox, I, Titli, Ugly and Dolly Ki Doli.[19] He has also edited videos for YouTube channels including The Viral Fever and Video Daddy." (this last one is promotional since the stuff that the non-notable director did isn't germane to this article, simply a way of attempting to puff up the credentials). Finally, the quote by Ashutorosh also is a bit self-serving - but if that were the only issue, it probably wouldn't be one. Although this is only in the current draft, which is markedly better than the last draft, which had stuff like "established in May 2014 to explore modern music and dance art forms with the aim of inspiring people", "Ashutosh started his music journey with live performances and later explored music production by creating background scores", "the brain behind the music, Dr Kalam's vision was their motive behind the single", etc. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that detailed answer, Onel5969. Does that help, Catrat999? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Team, Thanks for the clarifications and for pin pointing the statements.

@Cordless Larry : Thank you for the help :) It was great but i found issues very partial based on my research on several articles!

@Onel5969 Since I am using quotes of people so I was not sure whether I was allowed to rephrase them for tone. I will correct the article accordingly. Here are some solutions I understood will work. a)"The act was directed and edited by Jackson Garg"(Additional info about the director needs to be removed irrespective of citations and the fact that independent sources did mention work of a non notable director b) For Other statements should I remove them or or can I get an example of what meets a formal tone? (I am short of ideas on this. One example will help me fix all).

As of now my understanding was I need to make articles based on facts and notability with proper citations but now I see less importance of notability and more of popularity, Here is another example of quotes : Mark Zuckerberg I remember really vividly, you know, having pizza with my friends a day or two after—I opened up the first version of Facebook at the time I thought, "You know, someone needs to build a service like this for the world." But I just never thought that we'd be the ones to help do it. And I think a lot of what it comes down to is we just cared more.[35] Also refer nature of citation in the both the cases and please guide me why Mark's quote is not self serving and why Ashutosh's is self serving ? That will really help me for future!

@Houdinipeter Also, I would like to confirm my understanding for future articles. In the previous drafts, I added quotes from people because I found citations for them. I had provided references for all such statements. I see the article Bitch Better Have My Money has used "According to" 4 times with random references. Should I always ignore such content or it needs to be used in specific cases like popularity ?

Over all thank you very much it was indeed great help :) I really appreciate all of you for giving your time on my project. I am open for any kind of constructive criticism, the doubts I raised might sound silly but they are based on my research please don't consider this as some fight or angry talk. And I am really sorry if my language sounds rude, no hard feelings for any one from myside, Infact Thank you for helping me in improving my Article, on a truthful note how others do it shouldn't be my concern at all but I do consider few articles as my reference and I am gad you folks are there for Help. Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I partially disagree with Houdinipeter here. I do think it can be appropriate to include quotes from the subject of an article, Catrat999, providing that they are properly identified as such and attributed as the subject's opinions where that is the case. There also needs to be a balance between what the subject says about themselves and what others have said. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

While quotes can be not only appropriate, but sometimes probative, in an article, those are rare. Especially when dealing with folks/companies of very marginal notability, such as the article under discussion. Comparing an article about the creator of a social media phenomenon which is known universally, where the personal motivations might be wondered about by millions, to the creator of a virtually unknown entity, is a very poor analogy. In articles like this, which are desperately attempting to show notability, the self-serving nature of such quotes is glaringly obvious, and should be avoided. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Onel5969 Sir firstly, I am not trying or desperately attempting to show notability. I am just comparing it with Mark because both of them are sharing space in one notable article. And you are teaching me that rules of wikipedia are different for famous people. I request you to check No of shares of this article, which you will find around few thousands and do you think those thousands have no significance ?

http://www.inc.com/drew-hendricks/37-quotes-to-keep-you-motivated.html And secondly if the subject is virtually unknown entity then why notable independent Newspapers and magazines like The Hindu , Afternoon (newspaper) , Inc. (magazine) , The Asian Age are talking about it? Dont you think you are forcing your perception without even reading all the citations and references, I understand that it might not be important for the world where you are coming from but what about people in India for whom its a Known Entity ? I really have no issues in removing that quote or whatever issues you have but what you are trying to teach me is totally contradicting from what I read in notability guidelines now. I was aiming to contribute to Wiki by writing on such topics which are notable inspirational subjects not necessarily be famous but now you are inspiring me to only write on famous people who are already known. Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

A few thousands... compared to millions (perhaps billions)? Hmmmm. Not here to argue, you asked for guidance, guidance was given. If you want to argue, I'm done. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Onel5969 : Thank you again for the guidance Sir, but your guidance seems to be inconsistent to me when I compare it to Wikipedia:Notability :Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity. For Wikipedia thousand Humans do have significance if A reliable sources that is independent of the subject is cited for statements . I am still awaiting for examples to correct it because problem here is not notability or quote , problem here is Tone and I don't see guidance is given on that thread. If you are done , no issues I appreciate your effort.

@Others: who can help in providing some example to correct it. One example from the content will help me fix all- Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Onel5969 : Well , I am extremely sorry for behaving rude last time. I read your feedback lot of times and gave a thought and yes I agree with your guidance on most of the threads. Thank you for the help. Catrat999 (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Signature

How do you make a signature? I don't know how to code. The Platypus of Doom (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey The Platypus of Doom. You mean a more elaborate signature than the one you are successfully using? See Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature (shortcut: WP:CUSTOMSIG), as well as Wikipedia:Signature tutorial, but please be sure that your signature continues to contain a mandatory link to at least one of your user page, user talk page or your contributions (see WP:SIGLINK). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

No longer have an edit button

Hi - I don't seem to have an edit button any longer. I have an option to Edit Source, but not to Edit. Not sure why that is. Hope you can help! Elizabg (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Strange. For me, it's the other way around. I can't find the option to edit the source in articles, which is easier. What has happened? Röd Boll (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Elizabg. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing has an "Editing mode" field where you can choose which edit options to see. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I just followed that link and didn't see any option to enable regular editing. I used to have it, and haven't changed anything in my settings. Right now I'm only able to edit source, which I can't actually do Elizabg (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter - I take that back. I just figured it out. Thanks so much for your help! Elizabg (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

How to correctly insert picture into article

Hello, my first article I tried to submit was declined, one of the reasons being that the picture I included on the page was malformed in some way. I thought I did what I was supposed to (upload picture, get the link, paste the link in the article) but I may have done something wrong here. Any help or info would be appreciated, thanks. Flik Triplez (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Flik Triplez. I fixed the image by removing the nowiki tags you posted around the image syntax (<nowiki></nowiki>). Those tell the software not to recognize code, but rather to treat code as plain text. I assume you copied the markup from an instruction page that is intended to be copied when reading, but did so while in edit mode. Anyway, that is not at all an important issue in the draft's acceptance. The main issue you need to tackle is that the draft cites not one reliable, independent and secondary source treating the topic in substantive detail. That is what is needed to demonstrate that a topic is notable – a subject that the world has recognized – taken note of – by people entirely unconnected to the topic publishing non-trivial content about it. If those sources do not exist, no article will be acceptable. A secondary issue is the non-neutral tone and non-neutral content tinging the draft. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

help and advice submission in regard to "non-neutral in the voice of Wikipedia"

Regarding submission: Draft:Russell L. De Valois (user S051125E)

Could you please provide advice and help in meeting the reviewer's objections: "Comment: Portions of this draft are still non-neutral in the voice of Wikipedia. Do not refer to his work in the lede sentence as "widely recognized" without indicating by whom. .............. "an outstanding perceptual psychologist", that should be attributed. If you have other questions about how to revise the tone of this draft, please ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)"

I have now removed the phrase "an outstanding perceptual psychologist" in reference to the individual.

However in regard to the objection to 'his work in the lede sentence as "widely recognized" without indicating by whom'. It would seem that the list of significant honors already included in "Recognition" section of the article speaks directly to the 'by whom'. Is is appropriate that these be referenced again in the lede? Is it necessary that the "widely recognized" be removed?

I would appreciate any further suggestions that will help me to edit the article so as to be consistent with Wikipedia policy and acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Thanking you S051125E (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, S051125E. You simply cannot use an evaluative promotional phrase like "widely recognized" without citing a reliable source. His referenced honors speak for themselves. Also, do not refer to him by his first name. We use surnames after first mention. Please trim the draft, removing every trace of promotional or unreferenced evaluative language. The neutral point of view is a core content policy, and is not negotiable. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I have a conflict of interest to edit my organisation page. I have requested for edits, but no updates to so far. Please help!

I have a conflict of interest to edit my organisation pagehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundtable_on_Sustainable_Palm_Oil. I have requested for edits, but no updates to so far. Please help!121.121.25.158 (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

If you are asking about an edit request that you made at Talk:Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, you didn't state exactly what edit you wanted made, and you were asked, and you didn't answer. What edit are you requesting? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)