Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 910

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 905

←

Archive 908

→

Are there guidelines about notable/relevant numbers of social media followers in existing BLPs?

The title already says it, and the WP:NUMFRIENDS essay should have links to possible answers, because it shows up in searches, cf. What is a relevant number of social media followers in BLPs?. –84.46.53.33 (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

If you've read the NUMFRIENDS essay, you already know that we don't put much stock in social media numbers. Trying to report the raw numbers is completely useless and the only way such numbers might be admitted is if reliable secondary sources say enough about the numbers to make them noteworthy. In other words, we do not directly report the number of subscribers or friends or followers as reported by the social media sites. Some other published source has to consider the numbers worth mentioning before we report them here. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but that doesn't explain why there are number of followers + combined views in {{infobox YouTube personality}}, but no equally relevant (wrt influencer marketing) or irrelevant numbers of Twitter followers in {{infobox person}} or in the prose of BLPs about "influencers", broadly construed.

Is more than 1M notable, assuming the BLP exists and is notable? And where exactly is a policy or guideline about this, one WP:NUMFRIENDS essay stamped as "NA" and not answering the question can't be all. –84.46.53.0 (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

There is not a particular number that is notable. You could have 10 followers, a 100,000, or all 7 billion on this planet, and it still would not be notable if no independent reliable sources write about it. Subscriber numbers are also easily gamed, as a single person can create multiple social media accounts and like/follow a subject to increase its numbers. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

By the same token, a YouTube user can have 10 subscribers and be notable if sources write about that fact. It all depends. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I take that as "normal WP:42 rules as always", and I'm anyway planning to replace the dubious {{infobox YouTube personality}} on the BLP for a musician. –84.46.53.0 (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

– by 331dot e.a., thanks. –84.46.53.0 (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

How do you get a .0 IP address?

There is a sub-population of Wikipedia editors who get into the "influence marketing" issue and want to pull the reported numbers directly from the social media sites. This tendency is evidenced by the way the YouTuber infobox has been used, following after wanting to report Alexa ranks in the web site infobox to show how influential a site is. I think this behavior should be discouraged. Just because we have a slot where the information could go does not mean that it's legitimate to pull it from any old source. A reliable secondary source needs to deem the subject and the statistic noteworthy first, then it can be reported on Wikipedia. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

.0, no idea, mobyklick is an ISP in Hamburg, at least no broadcast address .255 (today I'm using ffhh, another ISP). Somebody put {{infobox YouTube personality}} on TFD, I wish them good luck with that. The musician will be presumably also happy, if she gets a decent infobox for a singer instead of this oddity: The maintenance effort to check followers and page views annually is too much. –2A03:2267:2:0:B84C:2193:8951:3E9D (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there a list of prohibited websites for citations?

I swear I read somewhere here in Wikipedia a list of websites that were prohibited or blocked for using as citations. I remember gofundme.com was one of them. I've spent hours searching for that list and can't find it again. Does anyone know where it is, please? Nomopbs (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Is https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist what you are looking for? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks but no, that's not it. But it gave me a new search term ("blacklist"). But still no joy. I swear it's out there somewhere. Nomopbs (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nomopbs: I think you might be looking for this: WP:RSP which has a list of sources that are often asked about and the current consensus for each. RudolfRed (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Not that one, either. But I love it! I've added that to my bookmarks. Thanks, Red. Nomopbs (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fug: Another good link (but not the one I recall) to keep and read. Gee, I could spend all day and night reading good shit in here. Oh wait! I DID spend all day and night in here. Nomopbs (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nomopbs: Wikipedia:Deprecated sources? Regards So Why 15:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

How to deal with a biased editor

Hi all, how should I go about dealing with a biased editor? I am trying to make edits to my alma mater's page, but a certain editor continually reverts the edits to inaccurate information. This person is a former student that was expelled and legally banned from the campus, so he has is obviously biased against the university. How can I correct this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southernhunter (talk • contribs) 15:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Southernhunter: I don't quite understand - these are your edits to the article, they are your only edits and they have not been challenged or reverted. Have you also used a different account to edit? --bonadea contributions talk 15:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bonadea:It's not my edits in particular, but I've watched the edit history and noticed the reversions by the BigDWiki editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southernhunter (talk • contribs) 15:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Cannot edit existing wikipedia page

Hello, I am a complete amateur at wikipedia. I have set up an account and would like to edit a few paragraphs in an existing wikipedia page. However I am not being given the option to edit-can someone please assist? Thank you genetic2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genetic2019 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Genetic2019: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It would help to know which article you are talking about. 331dot (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Genetic2019. Given what you describe, it sounds like the article is protected from editing. That might be full or semi-protection. If the latter, you can edit the article after your account becomes autoconfirmed. Either way, you can make a request on the talk page for a specific edit to be made. (In my experience, a common mistake when making edit requests is not being specific enough. Requests that, for example, say "It should describe more about X", will fail. Instead it should say something like "Please add this sentence to this part, with this cited source: Suggested sentence[cite].) See Wikipedia:Edit requests for how to request that an edit be made. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your reply. If I make a request for edit, generally how long is the wait time before the edits are made? Thanks, Genetic2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingo2019 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

If you make a request for the deletion of sourced text, as you did in this edit, you need to explain why the cited references are invalid. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

creation of page

how to start creation a page ASLAM SHERWANI — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASLAM SHERWANI (talk • contribs) 16:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

If you are asking about creating an autobiography, the advice is not to try to do so, see WP:Autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Your User page is a place to write about your intentions as a Wikipedia editor. Your Sandbox is a place you can work on drafting an article. As DB wrote, advice is not to try to write an article about yourself. David notMD (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Not Enough Expeirence to CSD

I've been deleting pure nonsense drafts and reverting vandalism as well as editing articles. However, an admin told me I don't have enough experience to do that. Why is that the case if so? --One Blue Hat ^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 18:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@One Blue Hat: It's likely related to the newness of your account, but in any case you'd be better off engaging the editor who contacted you on his/her talk page. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

What the VERY experienced editor wrote on your Talk is "Don't tag any more pages for speedy deletion." As you have been an editor for only a month, valid advice. Sometimes, inexperienced/new editors create an incomplete article directly in Wikipedia rather than submit to Articles for Creation, with intention to come back to the article and improve it. Rather than slap them with a SD, perhaps offer advice on how to improve the article, or just do nothing, with hope it will be improved. There is no need for rush to judgement. David notMD (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Darren Bailie

Need help getting this page ready for publication, if you google Darren Bailie you can get plenty of info on him, what should be included in the article.. he is well know for the Guru Josh Project and the Guru Project.. at the moment any mention of these on Wiki are wrongly re-directed to the Guru Josh article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazperkz (talk • contribs) 00:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dazparkz: Notability is weird sometimes. This isn't exactly the same as your case, but perhaps you've heard of Pentatonix? They're pretty famous, get loads of views on their article, yada yada. The thing is, not all the members have articles- some of them are only famous as part of the band, and not independently. Two of them are even part of another group, but still don't have articles. Just because someone's name is known among many people doesn't necessarily make them notable. One issue I see with the sources for Darren Bailie, though, is that many are primary sources. Wikipedia tends to want in-depth third-party coverage in a reliable source, which in regular terms just means that we want articles about them (and them, not another topic that mentions them in passing) in reputable sources, like the BBC or CNN, for example. In practice, most news sources work, as long as you're not trying to source a controversial political opinion with a partisan source (unless you provide both sides) or if the source is typically (on Wikipedia) considered patently ridiculous (probably not the best idea to source a controversial fact solely to the front cover of the Sun or the Daily Mail!) Pretty much all of the results that come up when I Google "Darren Bailie" are actually about Guru Josh- thus, not in-depth coverage. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dazperkz: missed ping -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@A lad insane: what you are saying is not actually correct, it is the Guru Josh Project not Guru Josh results that come up when you google his name, this is because he created the Guru Josh Project in 2007 a separate entity, he then invited Paul Walden aka Guru Josh to join him in 2008 to be part of the Guru Josh Project, darren Bailie is solely responsible for the Guru Josh Project and any music produced for the Guru Josh Project, that is why when you google either Guru Josh Project or Darren Bailie is is Darren Bailies picture and details you will get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazperkz (talk • contribs) 10:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@A lad insane: Basically Darren Bailie is The Guru Josh Project, the name is only a confusion matter as he based his band as project on the old music of Paul Walden aka Guru Josh... if you you look up Guru Josh Project, Dome 49 it is darren Bailie live on TV, if you look at the Winter Music conference awards in 2008/09 it is Darren Bailie in Miami collecting the awards. By every mention being re-directed to the Guru Josh page is totally misleading and FAKE news. It is Darren Bailie who created the band, produced any music, made any TV appearances and collected any award and this is because Darren Bailie is The Guru Josh Project. I only need help rectifying this fake news on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazperkz (talk • contribs) 10:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Dazperkz (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@A lad insane: and another huge misleading point that needs addressing, when Guru Project is searched it is also re-directed to the Guru Josh page, Paul Walden aka Guru Josh was and had never been anything to do with this band, he was never a member and never involved in any of its music, you guys whole police wikipedia need to check the facts before you you delete true factual, move or re-direct information. Darren Bailie once again is solely responsible for the band called The Guru Project, he is still the band owner and TM owner. So i think it's time you do a little help in getting the Darren Bailie draft ready to be published instead of ignorantly denying or removing its factual content Dazperkz (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dazperkz: There is a great essay here that is relevant to your point. For a subject to have an article on Wikipedia, they typically should have been discussed in depth by multiple third-party sources as a standalone subject. Wikipedia goes off of what these sources say, and NOT what the source says. In other words, if every reliable source says that John Doe was born in Liverpool, but John himself insists he was born in Sydney, we will say that he was born in Liverpool. If you could provide links to third-party reliable sources backing up what you have said, the article may be fixed. If you haven't provided sources when there are sources to the contrary, you honestly might as well be building a snowman in Hell for as much you'll get done. Also, if you could refrain from calling many experienced editors "fake news" we would appreciate it. Please provide your sources. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@A lad insane:thank you for the info i will include the third party links etc as you have suggested, as you can tell i am not experienced at this and your message is exactly the kind of help i needed. Dazperkz (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

InternetBigelow is backup on the Life!

Hello Wikipedia the free encyclopædia i am InternetBigelow. Do you remember me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InternetBigelow (talk • contribs) 17:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@InternetBigelow: Welcome (back) to Wikipedia. Please remember to add proper citations for your edits, and sign your posts here with the four tildes (~~~~). TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@InternetBigelow: I'm not sure why Timtempleton asked you to give a citation to this edit which only added "It started información Windows Vista and ended in 8.1.". Personally, I would have removed it completely as not being a correctly constructed sentence in English. Would you please try again and make it clearer what you mean? As Tim asks, please ensure you support it with a reference. We welcome new editors here whose first language is not English, but we do require them to write coherently. Your user page does not fill me with much confidence that you may do that. So I would earnestly ask you to take great care in everything you edit here. You might wish to familiarise yourself with the basics of Wikipedia by doing The Wikipedia Adventure. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Courtesy benefit of a doubt, per not biting newcomers, but extra eyes are good too. ;-) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Is this content inappropriate for Wikipedia?

Hello everyone.

Some days back, I wrote a small observation regarding Memling's painting The_Last_Judgment_(Memling) in its Talk:The_Last_Judgment_(Memling) page, which was then edited by adding the 'Ruminations' title.

Some days later, I passed by the main English Wikipedia page, where I read the 'Did you know...' line of the OK_gesture. In its Talk:OK_gesture page, I started writing an observation related to it (you can read it here). While I was still writing it, it was deleted from the page.

Both texts that I wrote were meant to highlight an objective observation of each article, but one was taken as rumination and the other one was deleted. In this sense, which one of them was edited right? I tried to ask each editor but I stopped hearing from them. I want to be completely clear so I don't make incorrect assumptions next time.

Thanks, everyone.

JoseEduardoTR (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, JoseEduardoTR, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read about original research. No opinion, argument, conclusion, comparison, or theory is ever appropriate in a Wikipedia article, unless it is wholly contained in a single reliable source, which is cited. Talk pages are for discussing the corresponding article and how to improve it, not for discussing the subject. So it is sometimes permissible to argue or theorise about the reliability or interpretation of sources on the talk page, but not about the subject itself. --ColinFine (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey ColinFine, thanks for your kind response.

What you told me makes complete sense to me. First, I am not making an opinion ("I believe that this text is appropriate for this article..."), or an argument ("I disagree with you because my text is better..."), conclusion ("my text is the best..."), or a theory ("I believe in what I wrote, and so you should too..."); and second, I am not using the Wikipedia article, but the talk page.

What I wrote was meant to highlight an objective observation of each article. If both have the same purpose, I still don't know why one was added with the text 'Ruminations' and the other one was deleted.

Thanks ColinFine for your clarification. – JoseEduardoTR (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, JoseEduardoTR. As far as I can see, your "Ruminations" are 100% original research. They are your theories, opinions, and conclusions about the subject matter. As such, they can never go into the article, and I cannot see how they comply with WP:TALK#USE, so they do not belong on the talk page. (See particularly "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it." in section TPNO.)

As for why one of your contributions was deleted and the other not, that is because Wikipedia is a volunteer project with many different editors, who don't always interpret the guidelines the same way. I don't think DavidWBrooks was right to delete your section - TPO as I read it says that collapsing the off-topic section would have been more appropriate. I have collapsed your Ruminations section for that reason. --ColinFine (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey ColinFine, thanks a ton for your clarification.

In the sense of 'original research', I will give it a thought, mainly because both texts that I wrote were based only on observation. I didn't research anything and I didn't come up with something original; I am inclined to think that someone with unbiased observation will watch this painting pretty similar as I do. Which is why I think they should at least be read and considered, not deleted.

Besides, they are not 'my' ruminations, the title 'Rumination' was added later. Those are only the result of my observation without evaluation, which I also consider the highest form of intelligence.

If you think that you are right by collapsing my observation, will you also be right by telling me to write back and collapse my observation on the OK gesture's talk page without the unfortunate to be deleted?

Thanks once again, ColinFine. – JoseEduardoTR (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

JoseEduardoTR. I think you are construing "research" too narrowly. The first paragraph of OR says

The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources

.

I am certainly not going to advise you to go back and restore what you wrote on the other page, even if you then collapse it. While I don't think DavidWBrooks was correct, I do not believe that it would be in the interest of Wikipedia to restore your text. If you feel strongly that it should be, then according to BRD you should not restore the other editor's reversion of your edit, but should engage in a discussion with that editor and any others who join in, to reach consensus. (That process is normally applied to articles, but I don't see any reason why it should not be extended to a talk page where there is a dispute as to the proper content of the talk page). --ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

HeyColinFine,

What you tell me makes sense. I will find the best way to write back the text in the OK gesture talk page. Thanks for your support! – JoseEduardoTR (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible to block/ban someone for verbally abusing someone?

I just had this experience with someone who wanted to "edit" my user page. I told him/her "No". Then out of nowhere, he starts swearing at me, using the "f" word and "b" word. Is it possible to block/ban him for doing that action? BashurMan (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@BashurMan: Not unless it is an ungoing problem. You basically did not assume good faith and complete bit a newby. You were both uncivil. Next time be nicer and maybe you will get nicer replies in return. See WP:BITE, WP:AGF, and WP:BOOMERANG. RudolfRed (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The OP and both new users posting on his or her talkpage are CU blocked. Meters (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

OP unblocked within 6 minutes. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphan tag on Roberto McCausland Dieppa stub article

Hello I am interested in creating a link on this stub Article to remove the orphan tag. I have found a review on Semana magazine which compares him to vladimir feltsman a pianist with a Wikipedia article aswell as the magazine . I am asking for assistance as I am still learning about the procedures and policies. Thank you in advance

Deanna Coakley 03:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanna Coakley (talk • contribs) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&action=edit&section=78Deanna Coakley 04:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanna Coakley (talk • contribs)

@Deanna Coakley: It sounds like you might be confusing WP:ORPHAN with WP:UNSOURCED. Articles like Roberto McCausland Dieppa are tagged as {{Orphan}} when there are no wikilinks to them found in other existing Wikipedia articles, while articles are tagged as {{Unreferenced}} when none of the article content is supported by any citations to sources. Orphaned articles can be de-orphaned by simply adding a wikilink to the orphaned article to another existing Wikipedia article, while articles which are unreferenced can be referenced (i.e. "de-unreferenced") by adding citations to reliable sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Article Wizard is so hard!

Why is Article Wizard So Hard It Should Be Easy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliotlucapowell (talk • contribs) 09:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Elliotlucapowell - welcome to the Teahouse. Contributing to any encyclopaedia is a very responsible job, and Wikipedia is no exception. As a brand new editor, you appear to have chosen the hardest task here - trying to create a completely new article from scratch. Most editors start off by making small improvements to existing articles before moving on to slightly harder and more complex tasks, like ensuring that everything they state is supported by a proper, reliable reference. (We don't just take anyone's personal opinions - we need citations as evidence). It can be quite demoralising to start of by trying to make an entirely new page. It's a bit like learning to drive for the first time, but choosing to do it on a busy motorway.

Why not try The Wikipedia Adventure, which is an interactive tour of the basics of how things worlk here, plus having a read of Wikipedia:Your first article? I should say that you have successfully managed to create a blank draft called Draft:Elliot Powell, so well done for that first step. I should point out that there is a very great difference between saying a few lines about yourself on your own userpage User:Elliotlucapowell (which is fine to do), and trying to add a new page about yourself to the encyclopaedia. We advise against people trying to write about themselves, but at this early stage I won't bore you stuff about 'notability' as you might well be intending to write about another subject, and simply put the wrong name on it. Once you have created a properly constructed new article, supported by references, you would hit the big blue 'submit' button and a reviewer will check your work, and rename it if necessary. I've left a short welcome message and a few helpful links on your user talk page. Just pop back here if you need any further help, advice or explanation of anything. We're all volunteers here, but we try to resppond as quickly as we're able. Best wishes at the start of your own personal Wikipedia adventure! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

film company

What do you do about theift of data online or i do.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeickalieMeilleur (talk • contribs) 10:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, MeickalieMeilleur. A warm welcome to you from everyone here at the Teahouse. I'm not sure what you are asking - could you explain please? It is important that you provide a link to an article you are concerned about. We do not permit use of copyrighted content on this site, and we take it very seriously. Have you found something that needs to be quickly removed? If so, we will need more details before we can assist you. Please respond as soon as possible, and another host will attempt to help you, as I'm now logging off for the day. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Cogital Page

How do I get an editor to clean up and check the cogital page and also change the name to cogital group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimel123 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Name change done. See answer to the other part of your question at your talk page, copied from the Talk page of the IP address that had previously asked questions about Cogital. P.S. Sign all comments by typing four of David notMD (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC) at end. David notMD (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: please remember to ping an asking party with the {{Reply to}} template when answering, especially when that is a new user, who may not realize how to watch answers to their questions. --CiaPan (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mimel123: Apparently David notMD tried to say “Sign all comments by typing four of ~~~~” in the comment above, but he probably forgot to escape the four tildes, so they got transformed into a signature and you couldn't see them.
You may want to see Wikipedia:Signatures for more information and gudelines on using automatic signatures in Wikipedia. --CiaPan (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

That was about Cogital → CogitalGroup rename. --CiaPan (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

RZB Securities | Raiffeisen Zentralbank | Raiffeisen_Bank_International

WP:DR ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear Teahouse, I recently made RZB Securities page and it was recommended as a merger page by another editor to the existing Raiffeisen page. "Matthew HK" is recommending deletion and I really don't understand why. IF all the other branches of RZB are listed so should RZB Securities which was a US branch. Please advise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RZB_Securities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiffeisen_Bank_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiffeisen_Zentralbank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiffeisenbank Josephintechnicolor (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Josephintechnicolor: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you go to the RZB Securities page and click on the blue links in the proposed deletion template, you can see why Matthew hk (talk · contribs) has tagged it for deletion. Specifically, there are no sources in the article to prove that this branch passes the general notability guideline. Sources must be independent (so not the bank's website) and in-depth coverage (so not a mere FINRA directory entry). As far as other branches having articles, that is an other articles exist argument. Each article has to stand on its own merits, not because similar articles already exist on Wikipedia. Some of the articles in the list at Raiffeisenbank were very short and should probably also be deleted or merged; for example Raiffeisen (Albania) was created in 2006 and there is no way an article like this would ever be accepted under today's standards. shoy (reactions) 15:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Shoy: Please also explained to him, throwing low-quality source for controversies section is not acceptable (see Raiffeisen Zentralbank#Controversy) It even looks like defamation. Matthew hk (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

An unsourced statement even once appeared in the article, claiming crime boss Semion Mogilevich somehow "controlled" the bank. Matthew hk (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Shoy: Thank you very much.

@Matthew hk: Regarding Raiffeisen Zentralbank Raiffeisen_Bank_International

Hi Matthew, 1) Semion Mogilevic and Raiffeisen Semion Mogilevich and RosUkrEnergo both make references and have sources that tie Semion Mogilevich to Raiffeisen. I found other sources showing the link between Semion and Raiffeisen. I plan to remake my post with these sources, (both are quality sources) before I do so I am presenting them to you. https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-politics/us-official-austrian-banks-ties-to-rosukrenergo-su-91986.html https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/01/business/worldbusiness/ukraine-gas-deal-draws-attention-to-secretive.html

2) Semion Mogilevic and Raiffeisen (2) I never said that Semion "Controls" the bank. What was written is the below. "Raiffeisen has a link with Semion_Mogilevich, USA claims he controls RosUkrEnergo, who is actively involved in Russia–Ukraine gas disputes, and a partner of Raiffeisen Bank."

3) RB International Finance USA (main USA raiffensen entity - make a new page) I suggest we put RZB Securities under the main USA entity called "RB International Finance USA" (a new page to be created) and include RZB Finance. Both the former RZB securities and RZB finance have now been placed under RB International Finance USA management which is under Raiffeisen Bank International AG. Is that suitable for you?

Matthew hk - I hope that resolves everything? 04:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Josephintechnicolor (talk)

Please see WP:UNDUE. Controversial content should be cited by many sources, not just one source in the tone of tabloid journalism. Matthew hk (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Matthew hk I found 2 good sources (NYT and kyivpost) and I know I can find many more, I quickly searched and have 2 more below (der Spiegel and wikileaks). Are you telling me that the all of these are controversial news sites or tabloid? How about the American Government who cited most of these issues against Raiffeisen? Do you have any further issues otherwise I will proceed. I find your efforts to block this Semion post and my other RZB page are HIGHLY suspect and bordering questionable. (You did not answer ALL my questions above). I am only stating the truth using what is available from credible sources while it seems you are trying to prevent them from being on the Raiffeisen wikipedia. Done now? Given your obvious expert knowledge of Raiffeisen I am quite shocked you are not aware of their history and want to block it before you even research to confirm it is true / backed by sources.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/no-and-no-again-the-rocky-us-relationship-with-little-austria-a-733536-2.html

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06VIENNA514_a.html

@Shoy: Dear Shoy, How can Matthew HK just place a disputed comment on this section without even discussing it first? Please see Raiffeisen Zentralbank#Controversy to understand the section I refer to. The link he removed on the holocaust was validated by a book on Google and Semion (Mafia Boss) has many quality sources. Matthew HK seems like he is protecting something and I don't feel he is a neutral party. Not only is there case law on the Raiffeisen Holocaust https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1153156.html but there are books as well, here is one https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=BiygDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=raiffeisen+and+holocaust&source=bl&ots=ueqOAcr-Yj&sig=ACfU3U1nkelboRxNwUrSPGFqROleTwW8mg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiNm5PW18zgAhWyBKYKHY1CA48Q6AEwCXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=raiffeisen%20and%20holocaust&f=false Can you please assist me and explain why is Matthew HK given so much power to deem things unworthy without so much as a discussion? 10:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Josephintechnicolor (talk)

This isn't the place for a lengthy discussion about Raiffeisen Zentralbank. If you can't reach a consensus at Talk:Raiffeisen Zentralbank, then go to WP:Dispute resolution. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

There is image for a Polish RAF Pilot I would like to upload.

The pilots name is Tadeusz Koc I'm not sure if copyright rules apply to old images from the 40s of military personal of the RAF I've found two images I had added a box to his page but not an image. Here is a link to one image the image for this one is above the name and here is the other one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jediaj02 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jediaj02. Copyright depends upon quite a number of things (some are shown in c:Commons:Hirtle chart) and copyright rules can vary quite a bit from country to country; however, a photo taken during the 1940s is generally not old enough to be no longer considered protected by copyright just based on its age alone. The information generally needed to make a good assessment of a photo's copyright status is who took it, when it was taken, where it was taken and when it was first published. It can sometimes be hard to do this for photos found on websites like those you've linked to above because in most cases the website is not the original copyright holder of the image and is just using the image per fair use or fair dealing; in addition, such websites seldom provide detailed information about the photos they host, at least not detailed enough to determine copyright status.

For some countries such as the United States, photos taken by government employees (this includes military personnel) as part of their official duties are considered to be within the public domain (i.e. not eligible for copyright protection) regardless of when they were taken, but other countries like the UK might follow something different. You might try asking about this at WP:MCQ or c:COM:VPC since that's where editors experienced with image licensing are usually found. In general, it's going to need to be established that the photo(s) are no longer eligible or have never been eligible for copyright protection for either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons to host the image under such a license; or, it's going to have to be shown that original copyright holder of the photo (i.e. the photographer ir his/her heirs) has given their explicit consent for the file to be released under a free license accepted by Wikipedia or Commons.

Now if the Tadeusz Koc your referring to above is the same person as Tadeusz Kotz, then another possibility would be to upload a non-free photo of him for primary identification purposes in that Wikipedia article per item 10 of WP:NFCI. Non-free content use, however, is quite restrictive and each use of a non-free photo must satisfy the ten non-free content use criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Yes that is Tadeusz Koc I was talking about I just forgot link the page as well but thanks for giving me instructions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jediaj02 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Archived Question re List of Thermal Conductivities.

Hello again Tea House: Thanks for all your help and yet the Analytical List in the List of Thermal Conductivities which lines up in Google Chrome does not line up in Microsoft Edge. The conductivities HAVE TO line up with their corresponding temperatures for the table to make any sense but for example the Ice section and various other sections are out of alignment in Microsoft Edge. That defeats the whole purpose of the list. Would anyone have any advice on how to get the listed conductivities to line up with their corresponding temperatures on every browser? (I don't know the syntax of the table and I only learned how to get things up on it by trial and error). Thank you, Patriot1423 (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Patriot1423.

This is starting to sound like a topic that can't be addressed well in the Teahouse and we may need to send you to a different venue. The Village Pump (Technical) page may be a good place to get an answer to your question. The fact that different browsers interpret CSS and HTML and Javascript in different ways has long been a problem on the web, but all of this hassle is apparently the price we have to pay to stay away from a software monoculture. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Please wikilink the article, e.g., Up-and-Down Designs, or better the section, e.g., Up-and-Down Designs#The Original ("Simple" or "Classical") UDD, and the :File with a leading colon or a leading c: for commons, e.g., c:File:Pifig.pdf. I'd be very surprised if Edge has issues with an ordinary PNG such as the File:Staircase Transformed Up Down English.png shown above.
OTOH both "images" (PNG + PDF) are diagrams and should be SVGs, and actually PDF is a proprietary document format unsuited for simple images, IOW, this might be deleted as too bad.
JFTR, MicroSoft abandoned Edge, maybe try IE11 for comparisons with my browser from hell aka Chrome. –84.46.53.0 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you and I don't know how to wikilink anything nor what that is and I'll have to get back to this later.Patriot1423 (talk) 06:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Note to self, wikilink wikilink on this page to get Help:Link#Wikilinks.

–84.46.52.182 (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Question on List of Episodes

Hi there! I am helping to create a List of Episodes page for a new show. A second season was announced to be released this year but it hasn't come yet. However, is it still okay to create a episode list page for the show regardless of it only having one season now? Or should I wait for the second season to be out? Thanks in advance! --ZoeZoeZoey (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello ZoeZoeZoey. It's best to wait until the new season is definitely more than just crystal ball gazing: either until somebody unconnected with the series chooses to publish something about the new season - and not just from a press release, but actually writing about it off their own bat - or until the season actually airs (and even then, it would be best if you could cite independent sources discussing it). --ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft rejected

I wrote about a product with some references but it got rejected, can anyone help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swot Guide (talk • contribs) 17:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Swot Guide. Not being an administrator, I can't see the deleted draft called "Vouch365", but you need to study the various links which have been put on your User talk page. Judging from those comments, it sounds as if you have the (very common) misunderstanding that Wikipedia has anything at all to do with telling the world about a product (or any other subject). It does not: Wikipedia is only interested in subjects which somebody completely unconnected has already chosen to tell the world about, by publishing at some length about it in a reliable source. Wikipedia has little interest in what any subject says about themselves (or what their relatives, friends, employees, employers, producers, institutions, or associates say about them), and no interest at all in how they want to be presented. So the question for you is, where has somebody not in any way associated with Vouch365 chosen to write about it? Unless you can answer that, you will be wasting your time trying again, as any article must be almost 100% based on such sources. --ColinFine (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Saber Azam

I had uploaded a previous version that I would like to delete.

As for this version, I would like it to be put in the usual Wikipedia profile format. Can someone help?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaberAzam (talk • contribs) 18:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, SaberAzam, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not contain profiles - not one. What it contains are articles, which are neutrally written, and almost entirely based on reliable published sources independent of the subject. It is quite likely that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notabililty, and so that we could have an article about you. Unfortunately, since the material you posted presumably comes from you (since you have licensed it as your own work), almost none of it is acceptable a source for an article about you. For that reason, I would be very surprised if anybody tried to use it as the basis of an article.

You are in any case discouraged from writing about yourself (see autobiography). You could request somebody write an article at Requested articles, but in truth, the takeup rate from there is very low. I suspect your best bet would be to post at WT:WikiProject United Nations, and see if somebody there would be interested in writing an article about you. --ColinFine (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @SaberAzam: Please sign your comments using four tildes like so: ~~~~. I think you may be confusing Wikipedia with Facebook or the sort; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social media platform or webhost.. If you are referring to the pictures, I'm not sure what policy is for uploading PDFs, but that shouldn't necessarily be an issue. If you are referring to an article or draft, you don't appear to have created anything; did you use another account to do that? Based on your username, though, it sounds to me like you are the person in question, which berings concerns to your use of the word "profile". If you are referring to the PDF, you should be able to crop the image and upload it as a JPG, but if you are referring to any kind of article I'm afraid you'll have to read WP:AUTO and WP:COI. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the useful advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.236.110 (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Help improving my REJECTED draft

I've been working on a draft article for David M. Posner, a well-respected rabbi. Is there someone who could mentor me to improve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamjessklein (talk • contribs) 16:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Iamjessklein: The reason for rejection does not appear to be quality, rather it seems to be questionable notability. This is not so easy to fix as quality; in fact, it's not really something you can "improve". If you can provide third-party sources with in-depth coverage, it may increase the chances the article is accepted. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The draft was rejected when it had only two references. You added five references, that's already much better. All statements apparently have sources, and the two NYT references are good to establish notability. So after "checking" your draft for less than five minutes I'd say that it's at least a valid stub with a chance to survive a deletion debate.
For further tips see the second link on the page: If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the at the AfC Help Desk: I'm not linking this here, because the link only works as it should if clicked on the draft. The AfC (Article for Creation) reviewers have special requirements, they want to be very sure that any draft promoted to an article by them will be not deleted. (Untested, I never visited the AfC help desk.) –84.46.52.182 (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your input. I'll check back later after continuing to draft some more. Iamjessklein (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Page Rename/Redirect

Hello! I'm brand new to editing on Wikipedia, so sorry if this is something obvious. (There's a lot to take in.)

I was making edits to this page because I work in the travel industry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Travel_Agents ASTA changed their name to the American Society of Travel Advisors (instead of Agents). I'm wondering how I should go about changing the page name and redirecting the old one. (I've seen it on Wikipedia before, just don't know what the proper process is or if I'm even able to do that.)

Thanks in advance!

Megrrose (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Megrrose: You can use WP:RM to request the article move to a new name. RudolfRed (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thank you!

Help with template

Moved to User:Xinbenlv/Help with template

Dear friendly editors.

Can anyone help me edit this Template:Inconsistent Birthday? Basically, the purpose is to allow pass in multiple (ideally, indefinite number of) entries of InterWikiLinks and Birthdays as variables of the template, and use it on Talk page.

It looks like this right now

{{Inconsistent Birthday}} Xinbenlv (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Xinbenlv. Because templates can affect lots of pages (sometimes in not so obvious ways) and the syntax involved can be a bit complicated, you might get better feedback from experienced template editors by asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates or even Wikipedia:Village Pump/Technical instead. Moreover, you should be aware that templates which have little encyclopedic value or are redundant to exisiting template can end up being nominated for deletion at WP:TFD if they don't comply with Wikipedia:Template namespace for some reason. I'm not saying that's the case here, but just pointing it out in case you weren't aware of it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you that's very helpful. I will ask over there. Xinbenlv (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Still draft

Hi. When does my entry lose its draft status? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegade Statman (talk • contribs) 22:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Renegade Statman, and welcome to the Teahouse. Draft:Corrie Ndaba becomes a published article when somebody moves it to the article space and the consensus is that it is an acceptable article. As your account is not yet four days old, and has not made ten edits, you will not yet be able to move pages; but it would be a mistake for anybody to move that draft to article space at present, partly because it has so little content, but mostly because it does not have a single cited source that is independent of the subject. A Wikipedia article should be based almost 100% on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject: if there is little or no such independent material, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article about them. The Wikipedia jargon for this is whether or not they are notable.

What I suggest you do, is read your first article, and NFOOTY, and (if you can find suitable independent reliable sources) continue to develop the draft. (If you can't find such sources, then give up, and don't waste any more time on a pointless effort). When you think it meets the criteria, submit it for review by pasting {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) at the top. Somebody will eventually get round to reviewing it, and they will either accept it and move it to main article space, or decline it, giving you a message explaining why. --ColinFine (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

FE-Schrift

I added glyphs and an error "sans serif" and it's now a font. Can i use it in cars or not, if is from Germany? I live in Argentina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Bigelow (talk • contribs) 23:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Charles Bigelow. I can see that you made some changes to the article FE-Schrift, corresponding to your first sentence. But I don't know what you are asking. If you are asking about what fonts are legal for number plates in Argentina, then this page is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia, not about anything else. In any case, I'm afraid that Wikipedia cannot give legal advice. If I've misunderstood your question, please clarify. --ColinFine (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because the basic 95 glyphs with the no break space = 96, and i am sorry (misleading error, 103), because i counted bad. Can i anstall this font in my country?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Bigelow (talk • contribs) 23:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Actors Dick Sargent & Fannie Flagg married?

I was just watching an old episiode of a game show called Tattle Tales, where entertainment couples answer questions about each other. Dick Sargent and Fannie Flagg were introduced as a married couple at the beginning of the show. Since both actors became publicly gay at some point in their lives, was this for real? But this relationship is not listed under either of their Wiki profiles. Was it a sham hollywood marriage, phony marriage? Does anybody know? Very curious

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE2A:6DD0:E456:FD0E:587:45CD (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 2602:306:CE2A:6DD0:E456:FD0E:587:45CD. The Teahouse is really intended to be a place where editors can come to ask questions about Wikipedia editing, policies and guidelines, article creation, etc. It's not really a good place to ask questions such a this. You might try asking about this at Wikipedia:Reference desk.

As for why the relationship is not mentioned in Sragent's or Flagg's Wikipedia articles, it's possible that the subject has been previously discussed and a consensus established not to mention for some reason (e.g. it couldn't be properly verified by citations to reliable sources). Try looking at each article's talk page (including the talk page archives, if any) to see if this is something which has been discussed before. If it hasn't and you think it's something worth discussing, then you can start a new thread about it. Just remember that the discussion should focus on how this information would improve the respective article(s) in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines; it should not be a free-for-all anything goes type of general discussion on the subject. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

creating wiki page on someone

how do you create a wiki page like this one, having top paragraph and then bluepanel left side saying Contents and one on right with photo and info below-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi and then write about each content section like Early Life, Education, etc - is there a step by step tutorial to watch.

can we create a page like this for oneself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.176.67 (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No, don't create one for yourself, see WP:Autobiography. Wikipedia articles are on subjects which are notable. To create an article on a notable subject, see the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Copying can be the greatest way to understand what is the process. That may be upsetting to some people because they do not know your intentions as it might apply to WP. When you are in edit phase all the coding etc can be seen that is involved in an accepted and authorized WP article. If you want to use the same format in another WP it may not be the best way to go about it if you would like to avoid critical reactions from others. If you wish to doddle with it in your own creation for your own curiosity then just copy it to your personal computer and go for it. If it is for a future project on WP then some due process might help you. Try and identify what segments of WP may help you how what you are thinking might better develop WP or just get in the way. Is there a group in WP that covers the content issue area. ask them. Get a consensus. Then follow through.104.35.236.49 (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)