Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cullen328, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

How to add geographic location as markup?

I have a word e.g. "Test" that I want to make clickable with geographic reference using longitude and latitude.

What is the Wikipedia markup for adding geographical location ?

MortenZdk (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MortenZdk. Please take a look at WikiProject Geographical coordinates, which should give you the technical information you need. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MortenZdk (talk • contribs) 09:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

How do I transfer pictures to Commons?

Hello I left a similar message a couple days ago titled "Transfering files to Wikipedia Commons and OAuth uploader". I realized that it is probably badly worded.

In short I am trying to transfer a file to Wikipedia commons, specifically File:Garid magnai.jpg which was tagged by another editor to be transferred. I however have no idea how to do it. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated thanks! Inter&anthro (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Inter&anthro. Please take a look at Help:Transwiki, which should give you the information you need. There is also a link to that help page on the image page, in the section where it says that the image is a candidate for transfer to Wikimedia Commons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I have a major problem with one of the editors

I realize that there is a COI if I edit my husband, Robert Perless' entry. I found that 2 photographs had incorrectly been deleted, and commented on it. (Sorry.) Meanwhile softlavender has made a gigantic fuss over the fact that there is no "proof" for the Museum Collections in his bio, but other sculptors do not have references on their museum collections, either. She does not understand the art world and makes sweeping incorrect asumptions about what she sees when she looks at a site. She has been extremely vituperative and dismissive of both Robert and his work and myself and it has got to stop.

She keeps insisting that his work has been warehoused if she cannot see it on a museum's site. That is just not how museum sites work. They show their current exhibits and a few pieces from other collections. The Whitney used to show a thumbnail of everything before they moved, but it was just too cumbersome. Now they just show current shows.

Robert has done major Public work for over 40 years. He has had corporate clients like Mobil Oil and Xerox and is currently short-listed for a major sculpture for the City of Honolulu.

Can somebody please stop her misinformed rant and take the [citation needed]off?

Thank you very much for your help. Eperless (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Eperless. I want to hopefully refocus the issues a bit—away from your perception of callous language in the discussions related to the issues; away from whether or not the editor misunderstands how museums list their holdings; away from whether the fact sources can't be found in any way indicates the museum does or does not have your husband's pieces in its holdings—to relevant policies.

Bedrock policy: 1) All material must be verifiable (capable of being verified by citation to published reliable sources); 2) upon a challenge to any item of information that is unsourced, it can be removed by any editor and the burden is on the person wishing to return the item to verify it with an inline citation to a reliable published source corroborating the information. The item cannot be returned until that occurs. That is the burden of anyone who wishes to add back unsourced, challenged and removed items from Robert Perless. Please note that finding other articles that fail our policies, as you have and pointed to has no logical sway. At any given time there are many thousands of articles that have not yet been vetted to remove unverifiable content or have other problems that would need to be addressed, so their existence with those problems in them is irrelevant. See by way of analogy WP:OTHERSTUFF.

So, put aside the other issues you've been discussing. They might have been handled differently, but they are distractions from what I see as the real issues, which is what I've summarized above. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Eperless. I understand that the COI policy can seem like an unnecessary hurdle when you just want to correct simple errors of fact. However, it is essential to upholding the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole. Our readers come here expecting neutral and objective information, and it should be obvious that that trust is rather undermined if they find that a biography has been written by the subject's wife (even if only partially). I strongly encourage you to restrict your activity to the article's talk page from now on, and leave the actual editing of the article to uninvolved, experienced Wikipedia editors.

I'm sorry to hear that you are having problems with your fellow editors. Unfortunately the Teahouse is not the best place to get help with this sort of thing – we are not here to provide "reinforcements" in editorial disputes. Wikipedia has various dispute resolution forums of varying formality, but in my experience most problems can be solved through simple discussion provided it is conducted with all parties assuming good faith.

I've read through the conversation on your talk page, and I have to say I don't think either DGG or Softlavender have said anything amiss. You are taking their comments awfully personally (another reason to avoid COI editing, of course). They are not disparaging your husband's work by asking for citations to verify information in the article. The reality is that Wikipedia is an anonymously authored internet publication open to editing by anyone. We cannot take anything on trust, there must be external sources to verify every piece of information. If that verification is not available then that is a shame, but it does not change anything – Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth.

Overall I would advise you to take a step back from this situation and leave your husband's article alone. It is not usually a good idea for the subject of an article or their family/friends to be involved in editing it. We are an encyclopaedia, we write articles about people, not on their behalf. Joe Roe (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• If a museum acquires an artwork for its permanent collection, they catalog it. Many now publish their catalogs online, even of pieces they are not currently displaying. If they do not, it may be difficult to determine that they really have acquired it, but for a major museum it is usually possible. That does not mean they have to show an image on their web site,or even that they ever display it, it just means there has to be some accessible proof that they have actually acquired it. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eperless: If you decide to just stay on the talk page, as others have suggested, you can use the {{Request edit}} template to get someone's attention with an edit (or list of edits) you want someone to make to the article. When doing this, make sure (1) you disclose your COI; (2) you make it perfectly clear what you want changed or added, and where; and (3) make sure everything is already well-sourced. In my experience, editors will not go hunting for sources for a requested edit.

When using the template, just fill in the section title with something like "Edit request" or something like that, type (exactly as it appears on the page, not in the edit window here) {{Request edit}}, hit enter, and type out your request. Using the template (which generates the message seen here) will add it to the page Category:Requested edits.

Also, I realize we have a lot of rules on this site. Some of them have annoyed me at times. But the rules are there so we don't go off the deep end and become a site that people don't depend on at all. That would lead to, I'm sure, the shut down of the site. (I apologize if that last bit didn't make sense.)

-- Gestrid (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference error

I just edited Eugeniusz Geno Malkowski article to fill in the death parameters. When finding the sourcing, all four sourcing I've found (in Polish) have said he was 74 at the time of his death (5 September 1942 – 20 August 2016), even though he wouldn't have turned 74 until the 5 of September (16 days from August 20, 2016). Is there any steps needed to be taken when sources have an error in them? Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 00:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If you're confident about both the date of birth and date of death (and they're sourced) then it should be self-evident that the age at death given in the sources is wrong. No need to do anything else. Joe Roe (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright Joe Roe, thank you! Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 01:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Tool for editing timelines?

I have a suspicion that two "different" editors are actually the same person. I've been using a spreadsheet to create a timeline that shows that they never edit at the same time. But it's a pain in the ass. Is there perhaps a tool that takes the contributions of two editors and creates a timeline of activity, to show (ideally) via a graph whether there is ever any overlap of editing time? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Nomoskedasticity: The closest thing I know is Editor Interaction Analyser, as this. — Sam Sailor 20:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

(ec)You could always use the "editor interaction tool" which shows sequences of edits. But better yet it so list actual evidence that they are the same person at SPI. "Checkusers" have better tools than mere mortals possess on this. Collect (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Collect, can you fix your typos, please? Also, CUs will not check a user without solid evidence, as well as a very good reason to do so. I know this from past SPIs I've filed. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

X's edit counter will give you a summary of the times that an editor tends to edit at, so that might help provide an overview for both accounts' editing behaviour. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responses so far. The interaction analyser is focused more on overlap for specific articles, and the edit counter tool does only one editor at a time. What I'm hoping for is something that does two editors in the same analysis but doesn't break things down by article. The point is to demonstrate that two different accounts never edit at the same time. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

how to add a map to an article

hello there, i m new to wikipedia and writing on my first article about a papuan language. i want to add a map of papua new guinea and highlight the area where the language is spoken. i found this free to use map on wikipedia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Papua_New_Guinea_location_map.svg. and i saw that lots of other people used this map in their article,eg. for an airport and they added where is it, in the map. my question now is, how do i do this? i tried downloading the map, which worked and editing it in paint. but i couldnt save the edits. from what i read about this map it is okay to do this, am i righ here? so basically i want to know how i can add something to this mentioned papua new guinea map. thank you very much already, best wishes. JohaAu (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

This question has already been answered at the Help Desk. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid: That doesn't mean that we can't answer it here too. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 05:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello JohaAu and welcome to the Treehouse. You don't need to edit the image itself and reupload it. You can just use an appropriate infobox for the article and input the name of the location map along with the coordinates of whatever the infobox is for. You can look at an example that I did here. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 05:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

EDITING

Hello, Why you allow users to editing while it's not allowed to save changes? I tried to edit while I have evidence source but nothing. Mohamed Helmi (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to these edits, you were changing text to capital letters without explaining why. Please read Wikipedia's guidance on the use of capital letters. You also changed information, in contravention of the reference given. Another editor therefore reverted your changes. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

This question has already been asked and answered below, Mohamed Helmi. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Using information from other Wikipedia articals in a new artical

I am working on an article for the March 86G racing car, a car used and re-branded as a BMW GTP while also having a career as a Nissan and Buick-branded vehicle. The BMW GTP has it's own Wikipedia article and I was wondering if I was allowed to copy an amount of the text from and link to the aforementioned BMW GTP Wikipedia article into my own one since it would be relevant and I would otherwise simply be re-typing the same information again in my own words anyway. I know there's a lot talk about not plagiarising and that would be the last thing I'd want to do, I figured it would therefore be best to ask.Fred E Coyote (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fred E Coyote: Welcome Fred. First, thanks for asking. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for the proper way to copy material within Wikipedia.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fred E Coyote. I see that you have posted a note at Talk:BMW GTP about coping material from that article, but I think that you also need to mention this in an edit summary so that it is clear in the history of the new March 86G article. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I have added a note at the bottom of the March 86G page which states the information was copied from the BMW GTP page, in accordance with the information stated in the "copying from Wikipedia" link provided by S Philbrick. I'll edit it again and state that in the Article History.Fred E Coyote (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something (which is quite possible!), Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia suggests that that note should go in an edit summary rather than at the bottom of the article, Fred E Coyote. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. I'll take your word for it. That would make sense, since it cleans up the flow of the article a fair bit... I'll be sure to make that modificationFred E Coyote (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

My submission didn't granted !

My submission titled NCTF NARSINGDI countiously refused by some ***** users! I am stuffed . Why this hell is happening???Taronga013 (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Taronga013. I understand it can be frustrating to have your draft declined, but please remember that the reviewers are volunteers who are devoting their time to make sure your article is ready to be published. Were your draft to be published now, it would almost certainly be deleted and you would not benefit from the valuable advice the reviewers are giving you. So please do not insult them.

You have been asked twice to provide additional references to prove that this organisation is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (not all organisations are!). I am sorry if the reviewers' comments were not clear on what was expected from you, but the golden rule is that you must show that the subject of your draft has had substantial coverage in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the organisation itself. For example, articles in major newspaper articles about it. Links to YouTube (which is not reliable) or the organisation's website (not independent) do not show that people outside the organisation are talking about.

Please try and find more reliable, independent sources to add to your draft before you submit it for review again. And consider whether a local branch of a charity is actually notable. It may be more appropriate to simply add (a small amount of) information from your draft to our existing article on the National Children's Task Force. Joe Roe (talk) 10:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

And please note that resubmitting the draft (as you have recently done) without having addressed the problems raised in the previous view is a waste of your time and of reviewers' time. To do so repeatedly would be liable to be regarded as tendentious editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Taronga013. In addition to what Joe and David posted above, you should not really be copying and pasting content found in other Wikipedia articles into your draft because it could be considered a copyright violation if not done properly per WP:CWW. It's best to try and write articles in your own words based upon what you've read in the reliable sources you are citing and avoid any possibility of plagarism. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all for your valuable suggestions on my que. I am shamed for using lame speech on my question. I do respect all of them who tried continuously to make WP environment suitable for all. Thanks for considering me.

& a question more, will the reference enough of a leading daily newspapers & TV channels news covering link on NCTF ??? 09:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

List Articles

An editor has created a list article with over 60 items. The list article has no independent notability WP:N and no attempt has been made to formally acknowledge the creative issues in the creation of the list WP:CITE. The editor has used the list article to create over 50 small articles to effectively by-pass the rules of Original Research WP:OR and independent notabilityWP:N and independent verifiability WP:V. The editor has engaged in a local consensus in redirecting link articles or duplicates/ contradicts information in other link articles or produce alternative explanations. I have extensively used the talk-pages to remedy the situation but the situation of mini-articles in the list remains. I have considered the BRD procedure and to deal with problems with over 70 list items may take 6 months to a year and the overall problem of the issue independent notability WP:N would remain. Is this an overall misuse of a list article ? I would like to avoid the issue of tendentious editing. Thanks agljones(talk)08:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Does this refer to List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course, to edit wars such as at Windy Corner, Isle of Man, and to the RFC at Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course? --David Biddulph (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The list article is this List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course. I am trying to avoid problems by asking for advice. Wikipedia is a hobby and I try to look for the best way forward. Thanks. agljones(talk)Agljones (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I doubt whether discussion here is going to help. This page is intended for new users to seek advice. It appears that in this case you are an experienced editor, and that there are already ongoing discussions on the relevant pages. I see also that this matter has been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive924#Editors Rocknrollmancer and doncram and that you have been given advice there. Discussing it here might be regarded as forum shopping. David Biddulph (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight and advice . I will consider the matter carefully. agljones(talk)AgljonesAgljones (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of my article

Hello, thank you for your help in advance. My article "Classter School Management System" was proposed for deletion. Even though I have added 2 refences from 2 of the most renown newspapers in Greece. What could I do to maintain the article in Wikipedia?

Kind Regards, Classter by Vertitech SA (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Classter by Vertitech SA: There's probably nothing you can do to maintain the article in Wikipedia. The subject is an unremarkable software package. The two sources you have cited appear to be two presentations of the same press release. Maproom (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Classter by Vertitech SA: Please read the Conflict of Interest policy pages as well. Having a username that is so clearly related to the article you have started is one sign of a possible conflict of interest.

Articles that are created as promotion pieces will generally be nominated for deletion and, if you had submitted it as a draft for review, you would most likely have been asked to substantially rewrite the article so it has inline citations, backed up by reliable sources. Newspaper articles can generally be used, but the content of the newspaper article must support the statement of fact that appears in the Wikipedia article (without quoting verbatim, as that would violate copyright).

It can be a difficult standard to meet.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion notice

I found that there was a deletion conversation on the one article I have written. I believe I have addressed the issue (I hope...) with references and citations. My question is, am I supposed to notify Wikipedia in some way regarding the additions? Do I post on the article's entry for deletions? Or is it better to wait and see what happens?

Paul D. MusilierPdmus (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pdmus. The debate is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Davison (composer). The only independent sources I see are to a newspaper called the Idyllwild Town Crier, serving a community of less than 4,000 people. That does not seem like a source adequate to establish the notability of a composer. I would look for sources with a reputation for reviewing original music in Southern California, such as the Los Angeles Times. You can comment further at the deletion debate, but I suggest that you add better sources than those now present in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Pdmus, I see you have previously written a long comment about sources in the deletion discussion, mentioning Peter Davison's CDs, film scores, etc. and places that his music can be bought online. This is not what is required. What is needed to demonstrate notability is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. The fact that Davison has released some CDs doesn't make him notable. If people have written about those CDs in, for example, major newspapers, then that might make him notable and those are the types of sources you need to cite. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

New Editor Wants Advice

I received the following general request for advice at my talk page from User:Johnegood:

Hi Robert, I am somewhat baffled by the question of how to write and navigate thru Wiki. I understand the feedback that I was given that the article for Burton Edelson was inadequately documented leaving too many questions open. At this point, I despair of ever learning the semantics and protocols of wikipedia. Is is it possible to hire an expert to do the research and the submission? Would that be frowned upon? What started as a fun project is, now that I'm about 12 hours into, another nasty chore full of confusion and frustration.. I'm sure a good researcher who knows wikipedia could do it in 2-3 hours. Is such a person findable?
This communication with you is an example of the problems that I face. Is editing source code the right way to respond to your kind invitation to answer a question? It feels wrong. Plus there's a weird delay so I'm typing and correcting missed letters at a snail's pace. Morse code would feel better than this. And now I realize that I have no idea how to ever get an answer...sigh. john edelson (reachable as [redacted] )

The background is that I declined Draft: Burton Edelson as inadequately sourced. I can see that the author finds Wikipedia to be technically difficult. I don’t entirely understand the question about editing source code. I can comment that hiring an expert to do a submission would be paid editing, and that paid editing is indeed strongly discouraged. However, if a novice editor who has no conflict of interest wants to request unpaid help, some experienced editors will be glad to help develop articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC

When the New York Times publishes a twelve paragraph obituary lauding a person's scientific and engineering accomplishments, as they did when Burton Edelson died in 2002, then we can be sure that the person is notable. Every assistance should be extended to Johnegood to develop this article until it is ready for the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

When Visual Editor is turned on the normal "edit" tab on talk pages turns into "Edit source". I can see how it's confusing to new editors – surely a major website doesn't require you to edit source markup to send a simple message? – but, alas, we do... Joe Roe (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

From Draft to Review to Published Article

I created/edited Wikipedia pages shortly after Wikipedia was launched, but haven't been back since. Tools like VisualEditor and Drafts are new to me. So - rookie question - once I've created & saved a draft, does it automatically go into a queue for review, or do I need to manually move it to a review/publish section before becoming an article? Thanks!Newstorey (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Newstorey. Review of drafts by experienced editors is an optional process for the benefit of newer editors. If you are confident that your draft complies with policies and guidelines, you can move it to main space yourself. If you want a review, place this code at the top of your draft:

{{subst:submit}}

It will then go into the queue waiting for a review. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

About the article Equality before the law

I was re-reading the introduction and it struck me how one sentence sounded like an opinion.

Such as:

But the Achilles Heel of liberalism is naivete. In practice the law is slow and prohibitively expensive. There is little or no equality when an individual confronts the State or a large company such as an Insurance company.

There is also:

There is an old saying that 'All are equal before the law.'

The belief in equality before the law is called legal egalitarianism.

Who said this or where does this claim come from?

How could this be improved or at least what markup could they can be fixed by other Wikipedians? -JamesPoulson (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahuse, JamesPoulson. That first piece of text you quote was added to the article recently, and I have reverted it. Templates for tagging problematic language are available via Wikipedia:Template messages. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Something about user rights

Will I attend the CVU automatically?

Eddie123e (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Eddie123e. I'm afraid that I have no idea what you are talking about. The only CVU's I can find are nothing to do with Wikipedia; but this is a page for asking for help in editing Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe Eddie123e is speaking of WP:CVU (Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit). The thing about the CVU is that it is not really an 'official' organization per se, but it has little to nothing to do with user-rights. Anyone can fight vandalism, both with and without an account, with and without rollback (although it does help). You should visit WP:CVUA, and read through on how to get started if you are interested. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 18:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Tagging

How to tag an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hell walker guy (talk • contribs) 11:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If you mean what most Wikipedia editors mean by "tagging", it's a kind of edit. As part of your edit, you place a template {{template name goes in curly braces}} at the appropriate place in the article. Some templates, such as Wikiproject notices, go on the Talk page of the article rather than on the article itself.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

looking for neutrality

Hi my article was rejected as the reviewer stated that i looked more like advertising than an article ad lacked neutrality. I had seen articles similar to mine that are public and wonder what is amiss. I have used secondary sources from business and professional journals. Page is Draft: Alzheon. Appreciate any advice DHeidtman (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi DHeidtman
IMHO Draft: Alzheon is overtly promotional - "Alzheon’s mission is ..." " "The company applies a precision medicine approach .." are all "ad-speak", and that is just the first paragraph.
As for "other articles similar to mine", that is an invalid argument in Wikipedia - we are not trying to copy the worst - please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists - and it is not "your" article, it is Wikipedia's article.
Finally, I note that all your edits are to Draft: Alzheon, or asking about that article, either here or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk I, therefore, suspect you may have a conflict of interest in writing about Alzheon, if you are connected to the company in any way at all, please read and follow our guidelines on conflict of interest - here - Arjayay (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)]]

Arjaya thanks for your helpful feedback! I appreciate the need to not compare to others. I will be attempting to write with more neutrality. DHeidtmanDHeidtman (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note also, DHeidtman, that the drafts process is relatively new, and lots of articles haven't been through the review process that you're currently going through. That means that we have lots of poor-quality articles, but once yours has been accepted then hopefully it won't be subject to deletion, as poorer articles might be at any time. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, thanks for your feedback, there is much to learn!DHeidtman (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Paywall / Registration Walls

What is the view on articles that have pay walls or require barriers to entry for use in references? An interesting set of scenarios is happening whereby these restrictions sometimes happen and sometimes do not. E.g. Harvard Business Review lets you view X articles per user before it takes you to a sign up page. Others do this based on country so editor/author might see it freely but others do not. Writeasong (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Writeasong. Scholarly journals are amongst the most reliable sources we can cite, and are often behind paywalls, so a paywall shouldn't be a reason not to use a source. See WP:SOURCEACCESS on this. Obviously, if there are two equally reliable sources available and one is behind a paywall whereas the other is free to access, there is a case for citing the freely available one, or both. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Writesong. As Cordless Larry points out, it's OK to cite such sources as references since (1) they are published and (2) they can be accessed by someone. Lots of old newspaper articles, etc. are archived and some of these may require registration or subscription in order to be viewed. Some Wikipedians can gain access to these per WP:HIGHBEAM while others simply sign up on their own. One helpful thing can be to use |subscription= or |registration= for such sources as explained in Template:Cite journal#Subscription or registration required. This lets the reader know that they may not be able to view the source or view only an except of the source. Please be advised that such sites are only considered acceptable as citations; they are not typically allowed as external links per No. 6 of WP:ELNO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

re-naming an article?

The article AEDP: Accelerated Experiential Dynamic Psychotherapy, is directed only by typing in Accelerated Experien.... in the search box. I would like to name the article in such a way that it can be searched by typing in simply, AEDP. Thank you. Carrieruggieri (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You could create a redirect, but it's probably not worth doing that until the current speedy deletion nomination has been considered. A Wikipedia search for AEDP already shows Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy as first response. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Carrieruggieri, I've created the redirect so the article will now show up if someone goes to AEDP directly. Joe Roe (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be negative, but I'm really surprised that this article was accepted in its review. It needs lots of work to come up to standard, in my view. Sadly, it is too technical for me to be able to help with the content. It reads like an essay in places, not an encyclopedia article (e.g. the caveat and the in-text "note"). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the redirect Joe Roe. Cordless Larry, I will remove the caveat, and the "note." I agree that there are places that read more like essay's. That happens when I am trying to be less technical. If you could point out what parts meet encyclopedic language (hopefully there are some places), that would be helpful. Thank-you. Carrieruggieri Carrieruggieri (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't understand large parts of the article. Starting with the introduction, we have "Contemporary psychotherapy research recognizes AEDP as prioritizing psychotherapy interventions known to promote positive change in psychotherapy...and has been either studied directly or referenced in research delineating change factors in psychotherapy". What has been studied directly? I presume AEDP, but the way the sentence is worded, it sounds like contemporary psychotherapy research. Then, "See Research heading below, and specifically references", which isn't a complete sentence and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. "Overall, AEDP is recognized as an effective treatment for complex post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression". Recognised by whom? Does every expert agree on this? That's just a few issues from the (now thankfully shorter than it was) introduction. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Very helpful critiques Cordless Larry, thank-you. I will clarify. I appreciate your careful reading and the time involved in improving this article which is, I agree, too parsimonious (which I thought was encyclopedic). Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

My sense is that too much of the article content is stated as fact, rather than as the opinion of the therapists associated with this approach. For example, is "Transformance cannot effect psychotherapeutic change without the requisite and crucial act of meta-therapeutic processing, or metaprocessing for short" an uncontested fact, or the view of the therapists? WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV might be relevant here. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

One option that occurs to me is to move the article back to draft space. That way, it could be improved without being subject to deletion attempts. Pinging Joe Roe and Robert McClenon, who has lots of experience with the drafts process, for their opinions. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Now that you're talking about how to improve the specific article, not working on a general question suitable for The Teahouse, can I suggest that you move this discussion to the article's Talk page?  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If we go back to basics, the purpose of AfC is not to turn out perfect, GA-ready articles, it's to get drafts to a point where they're (quoting WP:AFCR) "likely to survive an AfD nomination". After Carrieruggieri had diligently responded to reviewers' comments over a period of months, I felt that the draft fulfilled the core policies of WP:N, WP:V (by a mile), and WP:NPOV (some editors obviously disagree – but I think it's a mistake to assume that because an article is written in the style of a research paper it is POV-pushing), and was therefore ready for mainspace. The only serious problem with the article is overly technical and unencyclopaedic in tone. That leaves room for improvement but not grounds for deletion—I know there are core articles in my area of expertise that have been completely impenetrable to the general reader for years, for example―and so I'm confident it would pass an AfD. Unfortunately these days there are too many trigger-happy editors who would rather stick a CSD template on an article than a cleanup tag, but I don't think the article should be moved back to draft at this point. Joe Roe (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Joe Roe, I very much appreciate your time and effort to improve this article. I know you are all volunteers, so I am especially grateful for your help. Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The article contains the sentence, "The entire transformational sequenced process is mapped out in the attached diagram". This must have been copied from some document that actually had an attachment. I have failed to find such a document on the internet. But I still suspect that copyright violation is involved. Maproom (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe that is a reference to File:Aedp chart.jpg, which is included ("attached") in the article. Joe Roe (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Naming conventions for countries

Hi. Someone has recently changed the location country of a film that was shot in England from England to the United Kingdom. I see the UK as three separate countries as is the official designation (by HM UK government) and each country is individual in their own right whilst remaining part of the United Kingdom.

I couldn't find a WP policy on the naming convention, but surely saying it was filmed in the United Kingdom against the Country parameter in the infobox is wrong because the United Kingdom is not a country. NB - I believe it should say England, but I haven't reverted it because it may be the policy to say UK. Any help? The film is Over the Moon.The joy of all things (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

PS - Happy to be proved wrong if saying UK is the case, it just flies in the face of nomenclature. It's like saying that the EU is a country when it isn't. Regards.The joy of all things (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, The joy of all things. The UK government has described the UK as a country made up of four countries. Whether you regard it as a country or not, it is clearly a sovereign state, unlike the EU. What do other, comparable articles use? One option would be to go for "England, in the United Kingdom", or similar. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cordless Larry (interesting username BTW). I will leave well alone and I am suitably educated. Cheers! (Although, the Scots and Welsh might not consider themselves as being part of a country called UK! But seriously; is there a policy on WP? Regards.The joy of all things (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Can't find an essay/guideline for it, but generally when talking about the location, United Kingdom seems to be used on Wikipedia. Techinically both England and UK are correct. Joseph2302 12:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, Scotland recently voted to remain part of the UK (granted, the result might not be the same today), but I wasn't trying to tell you that you must use United Kingdom rather than England, The joy of all things - just offering my view. Does anyone else know of a relevant policy? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Best I can find is this, but it's about people & nationalities. Very rarely seen England as a location on here. Joseph2302 12:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. It's good to get some viewpoints and balance. Regards.The joy of all things (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

PS I think you will find the UK is four countries, not three. - Arjayay (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Arjayay: Yes, you are quite right; I was confusing United Kingdom with Great Britain as so often it is written as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.Regards.The joy of all things (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

User Names and Article Names - Minimizing Confusion

I have several times recently seen cases where a new editor selected an account name that was the name of the person about whom they were writing an article. In each case, of course, other editors assumed that the draft was an autobiography, and then considerable confusion resulted. This seems to be a more common error than I had previously thought. The question is: Should the screen that asks a user to register an account be updated to clarify the difference between a user name and an article name? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I ran into this problem often. Just a few minutes ago, I responded to an OTRS inquiry from someone who is confused because they were told the username was fine but it was also blocked. I've pushed for an overhaul to the username process but it didn't get much traction, perhaps because I was pushing for too much. I'm in support of approaches such as you suggest although I think more needs to be done. I trust you realize this is not the venue for such a discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I have seen this fairly often, Robert McClenon, but I have come to think that people who make these mistakes probably don't read the relevant notices. Take Wikipedia talk:Teahouse as an example. Editors quite often post their questions there, despite the clear notice that it isn't the Teahouse questions page. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

In other words, I think that Cordless Larry is saying that there is only so much that can be done to prevent mistakes. Murphy's law says that if anything can possibly go wrong, it will. There should be a corollary that some things that cannot possibly go wrong will go wrong anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Jack Armstrong and User:Apersonofinterest20/sandbox

I reviewed User:Apersonofinterest20/sandbox and declined it as duplicating Draft:Jack Armstrong. I stated that, like the other draft, it has an informal tone and contains speculation. I advised the author to coordinate a single article on this person that would be properly sourced and would be fully complaint with the biographies of living persons policy. I then got a reply from User:Apersonofinterest20 on my talk page:

Hi I am sorry, I opened an account under Jackarmstrongartist initially to try to get this person listed within the encyclopedia as I believe he deserves a place in history.
The article is not about myself, I am not Jack Armstrong so I realized I needed a more neutral user name, I couldnt seem to delete the other account. I would love to contribute to wikipedia and have this published and would be grateful if you could use this account and this article as it has been updated taking into consideration all previous comments and advise received from other members.
None of this material is speculation, it is all based upon facts and I would be very grateful for any help or advise you can provide to assist me in getting this published.
This article is not for monetary gain by means of selling anything or promoting this individual it is just purely factual information I believe needs to heard.

I see that considerable confusion was caused by what seems to be a common newbie error, and that is in thinking that a username should be the same as “the” article name for which the user is creating their account. While the user could have changed their username, they didn’t know how, and simply created a new account. I would suggest that the old account be blocked (without the implication that they did anything wrong other than making a mistake).

The subject of the draft does appear to be notable, among other things for having apparently mysteriously disappeared, but I think that great care needs to be taken in writing a compliant biography of a probably living person, and this is a particularly sensitive case. (I never intended to suggest that there was any promotional intent.)

Does anyone have any advice for the author? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Based on what is present in the draft at this time, I do not believe that this person comes anywhere near close to meeting our notability guideline for artists. The sources for his claimed success as an artist are press releases and blogs. He claims a relationship with Andy Warhol, but I see no evidence that scholarly sources about Warhol (which are massive) discuss his opinion of Armstrong. What I see is that he is a self-promotional motorcycle painter. Then, we have his arrest for a tawdry offense, which is described in a British gossip tabloid. Per WP:BLP, an arrest without a conviction should be handled carefully, and in itself, this arrest does not confer notability. Maybe he has disappeared, but the sources for that also seem weak. What I see at this point (and the very common name makes searching for sources difficult) is a non-notable Hollywood publicity seeker. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Would the author care to comment? I think that User:Cullen328 and I are in agreement that there are BLP issues that need to be touched on very carefully if at all (and one way to avoid BLP violations is to avoid coverage of the person). Also, notability is not inherited; unlike his uncle, he was never on the Moon. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

what do I do if I think the editorial standard of a wikiproject page is non-neutral

Is there a way I can talk about it with someone in semi-private as to why and which project?

Shanac (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Shanac: Welcome to the Teahouse.

For the most part, all discussion about viewpoint on Wikipedia takes place in the open. There are some subjects that may require private handling, but viewpoint is not one of them.

If you think an editor has a Conflict of Interest, there's a WP:COI page that can guide you about how to deal with it.

Some editors have enabled email from other users in their preferences. You can do this by choosing "Email this user" from the Tools selection in the sidebar. Look for an experienced editor, not too closely involved with the project in question, who has this enabled and they, more than likely, will be willing to advise you privately.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I should mention the page WP:Emailing users which you probably want to read before engaging in off-wiki communications.

And I don't think I said clearly enough that you can access the "Email this user" tool while looking at the the other user's User: page or their Talk: page.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

new title page

Hello dear editors,

I'd like to propose a new page title for Phramongkolthepmuni, but have not received any response on the talk page. I would like to receive some feedback and know what others think about what could be a good name for this page. Phramongkolthepmuni is known under different names, and it is hard to establish all by myself which name is most commonly used. I appreciate the help.S Khemadhammo (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, S Khemadhammo. Have you considered listing the article at Wikipedia:Requested moves? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply, Cordless Larry. I'll try! S Khemadhammo (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, S Khemadhammo. I see that you manually edited Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions. That page is automatically populated and your entry has been removed by the bot. You instead need to follow the instructions at WP:RM#CM, using the code listed there on the talk page of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I have done so now.S Khemadhammo (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

How to write wiki page for an organisation that does not get marked for speedy deletion

I am trying to author a page for a support group of pregnancy and infant loss. However, the page has been marked for speedy deletion. Apparently what I wrote is seen as advertising. But This is really just the beginning of describing a support group that has existed for almost 6 years. I don't understand why it is seen as promotional when all I have written is why the organisation was started and what they do. Am I missing something? I thought this page would be exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia was for? The page in question is on "Daddys With Angels". Any help would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzyonstage (talk • contribs) 18:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Izzyonstage, and welcome to the Teahouse. Daddys With Angels is indeed written in a rather promotional tone (e.g. "The fears of retribution for something that was said to be taken out of context is now a thing of the past"), but my main concern is that it doesn't cite any sources. Articles need to be verifiable, meaning that a reader can check whether everything is correct by consulting the sources that have been used to base the article on. Most of these sources should be independent of the subject (i.e. written about the organisation, rather than by it). A better approach than creating an article directly is to create a draft via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. That way, you will get feedback and the article, once accepted, will be much less likely to ever be deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems that someone has already started a draft, at Draft:Daddys With Angels. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Izzyonstage as someone has requested the article for deletion as promotional I have moved it for you to User:Izzyonstage/Daddys With Angels where you can work on it at your leisure. I would echo Cordless Larry's concerns and add that among other things you need to remember that Wikipedia has a global readership and the article doesn't, at the moment, say which country the organisation is based in. Nthep (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

A relative minor stylistic point, but there are several incomplete sentences in the article, such as:

• "Safe in the knowledge that what members say in their respective groups will always be kept confidential";
• "All of whom share their stories and precious memories of their angels (A term used to describe a child who is no longer living) and also help to support each other through their daily struggles with grief"; and
• "From stories, pictures and poems through to peoples hobbies and interests and general conversations on various topics of surviving the grief of child loss". Cordless Larry (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi CordlessLarry, thanks.

I agree some aspects should probably be written in a different way. That Draft link may have been my original attempt. However I managed to loose where it was. Is there a way I can make the existing version private to me while I am still editing? Would be handy not to loose anything that I have already written. I have loads of other site links to add which may fulfill the citation requirement. Thanks for the info so far 82.43.204.22 (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not possible to make drafts private. Nothing will be lost now that the article is in your user space, Izzyonstage. Also, please don't make threats such as you did here, otherwise you will find that other editors' willingness to help you is quickly diminished. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Izzyonstage. I wrote an article about a similar group, Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep (organization). I was inspired to do so after my grandson died at birth last year. I hope that reading my article will be helpful to you in writing yours. Please feel free to ask me for advice if you wish. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Izzyonstage, it might possibly help you to realise that there is no such thing as "a page for" an organisation (or a band, or a person) in Wikipedia. What Wikipedia has is articles about subjects. This might seem like a picky distinction, but I think it is important. If you come thinking of creating a "page for" something, that suggests either that you mean a page supporting that subject (which would be Promotion, and so forbidden: Wikipedia is neutral) or a page belonging to the subject - and no page in Wikipedia belongs to anybody. --ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Egyptian_citizens

Hello, I'm trying to editing the above page and when I save my changes return as if nothing edited.

Can you help? Mohamed Helmi (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mohamed Helmi:, your edits to the article were undone by another user. There are two reasons I can see.

1. You changed the ranking from 88th to 87th without quoting a source for this, and
2. Most of your changes changed existing text to capital letters. This is contrary to the manual of style MOS:HEADCAPS which says sentence case should be used. Nthep (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I made a page of Dj Rink . I am not getting approval of the page. Djravass (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

i have given the notability of dj rink news paper article but still its not getting approved . Djravass (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Djravass. The article has been deleted, and since I am not an administrator, I cannot look at it and see what you added to it. But I would advise you to read your first article carefully, and use the article wizard to create a draft in Draft space where you can work on it at leisure. But most of all, I would advise you to spend a few weeks improving existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before you embark on the difficult task of creating a new article. --ColinFine (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Why References?

I just wanted to know why is it important to cite references in an article? Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hell walker guy (talk • contribs) 09:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

To show where the information comes from. Ruslik_Zero 09:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Because WP:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, (nearly) anything in it might be wrong, Hell walker guy: it might have been altered by mistake, by a well-meaning person who has something wrong, or by a vandal. On balance, most of the information is correct most of the time, but nobody should rely on anything in Wikipedia. But if information is supported by a citation to a reliable source, the reader can in principle check its validity. --ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

speedy deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

new to wiki editing, usage and terms etc...just put a page up "Nessacary" and while I am learning how to navigate and use, the page came up for "Speedy Deletion" of a bona fide page.

As such, I asking who it may concern ot those that are able to provide some advice or direction.

Thank you ACMPR (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, ACMPR. Somebody has already put some useful links on your User talk page. The one I would point you to particularly is Your first article; I would also add that it is unfortunate that so many people come new to Wikipedia and immediately try to do one of the hardest tasks there is, which is to create a new page. I would advise you to spend a few weeks working on existing articles to understand how Wikipedia works before you embark on that. --ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

trouble inserting a name to bulleted alphabetical list

Having trouble inserting a name to bulleted alphabetical list - Please see below. I have tried it without the category/sort as well. The name does not go into the list, it goes above

*Bruce Beinfield
[[Category:Name|Sort]]
[[Category:Fellows of the American Institute of Architects]]

InsightOut1 (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that you have been trying to add a name to Category:Fellows of the American Institute of Architects by editing the category itself. That's not how Wikipedia categories work. To add an article to that category, you should go the article itself, and add "[[Category:Fellows of the American Institute of Architects]]" at the bottom. But I can find no Wikipedia article on "Bruce Beinfield" – and you will see near the top of the category, the heading 'Pages in category "Fellows of the American Institute of Architects"'. It is a category of Wikipedia articles, not of architects. So, unless someone creates an article on Bruce Beinfield, the name cannot and should not be added to the category. Maproom (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

InsightOut1, I explained this to you in response to your previous question. Did you see my answer there? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

But to reiterate Maproom's point, InsightOut1, it is only technically possible to add existing articles to categories, and not names with no articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Citing references

In my article, I used footnotes to cite references. However, they did not appear on the Wiki page. I went with it anyway. How do I edit the article with the appropriate annotations? thanksTerry G. Shotland (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to Draft:Stephen Williams there are no footnotes nor any other form of references. The feedback on the draft (and on your user talk page) tells you how to include references. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Terry G. Shotland. It looks like you have added some references to the article. Now, I suggest you add a "Reference" section to the end of the draft. You can find out how to do this by reading WP:REFB#Before you start. You might also want to take a look at WP:CITESTYLE.

I also suggestion you format the section headings in your draft properly as explained in MOS:HEAD and MOS:SECTIONCAPS. This will make it much easier for others to read your article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm unclear about what constitutes notability

I'm trying to create an article and the first draft was rejected for lack of references. I did post references from news sources. I was hoping to get some specific feedback. Adam Rotenberg (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Adam Rotenberg. Notability, as Wikipedia defines that term, means that the topic of an article has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The article should be built by summarizing what those independent sources say. When I look at your draft article, I see no references, although I do see some external links in the body of the draft. We do not allow external links in the body of an article, although a small number may be acceptable in a dedicated section at the end of the article. Please read and study Your first article and also Referencing for beginners. Please take a look at Featured articles and Good articles about similar topics, and strive to write an article even half that good. Do not model your article on mediocre articles. We have too many of those on Wikipedia and should try to improve them instead of emulating them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Adam Rotenberg - The first version of your draft that I can see had no formatted references. Formatting your references correctly is the hardest aspect of writing a Wikipedia article, but it is one of the most important. I can't see the exact version of the draft as I declined it because much of your original draft was redacted due to copyright violation. In addition to reading about references and notability, please read the copyright policy. You ask me on my talk page what my specific reason was for declining your draft. The lack of properly formatted references was the reason. Many new editors don't understand how important references are, or don't understand how demanding our copyright policy is. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)