Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 505

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. 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 main page.

Archive 500

←

Archive 503

→

What to Say to Author of Autobiography

Most of the questions that I post here have to do with drafts that I declined at Articles for Creation, and I am asking whether other experienced editors agree with my decline. This question isn't about whether other editors agree, because I don't have any doubt about the rules. This is about what to point an editor to. I declined an autobiography of a non-notable person. The author then added more references to social media and asked me to re-review. I declined again, but my question is whether there is any particular policy or guideline, other than the autobiography guideline itself, that I should point out in a case like this, a non-notable person who resubmits an autobiography? Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I would refer the editor to Wikipedia:Notability (people), pointing out why the draft fails to show that the person is notable. Although writing an autobiography is discouraged, it is not forbidden, and if someone wants to try, AFC is the best place to do so. If the person is an Olympic athlete who competes in Rio, or a newly elected state or provincial legislator, we should assist them in getting a neutral, well-referenced biograph biography into the encyclopedia, because they are notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. The examples that Cullen328 gave are what I would suggest be called ipso facto notability, based on particular guidelines. I can't recall reviewing an autobiography by someone who was ipso facto notable. (I have reviewed draft articles on people for whom there was an unreferenced statement of ipso facto notability, and I have declined those but have noted that the person was notable, but that a reference was required.) I will point them to the guideline that you mentioned. Part of the problem is that some people don't listen. At least in AFC they aren't in mainspace. Part of the problem is that some people just don't listen, either about individual notability, or corporate notability, or conflict of interest, or what Wikipedia is not. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I would think we'd get very few autobiographies written by truly notable people, because truly notable people are generally too busy to write autobiographies... But yes, I agree that if they don't have anything except social media, it's not suitable. Maybe they'll give up on writing about themselves and devote their time and effort to notable people. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

User:White Arabian Filly - What we more commonly see for notable people is conflict of interest biographies, written by someone working for the subject. These are usually declined either for notability issues (the person isn't ipso facto notable, and the article isn't adequately sourced), or tone (neutrality) issues, or both. It isn't always obvious that the draft is a COI biography. Sometimes it becomes clear after the decline when the author starts complaining that their employer needs the article approved. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Length of article

What is an appropriate length for a Wikipedia article? Gordon410 (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This is discussed at WP:Article length. Rojomoke (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

An article can be as long as 10,000 words or more, if there are enough sources on the topic to provide for that much content. Undoubtedly there are articles that reach 20,000 words. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The recommended maximum length is around 100kB of text. There is no standard for minimum length, an acceptable stub could be as short as three or four sentences. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Gordon410 If you look at the menu on the left-hand side of any page on Wikipedia, there is a link to Page Information. Clicking on that link gives you with lots of information about the page including it's total size as well as how often it has been viewed. There is also this tool - you just copy and paste the text into there, and it counts it for you. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction in article submission review

I first received a notification that my article for the organization Family Promise had been accepted. Then I was notified that it was declined because "the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia," but redirected to the article I had just created (which had been accepted). Please advise on how to proceed. Syndic.adelier 14:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syndic.adelier (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The problem was that the editor who accepted your draft and moved it to mainspace then made an erroneous edit on the draft page and resubmitted it, instead of tidying up the mainspace page. I have reverted that erroneous edit. Any further tidying up should be done on the mainspace article. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Need some guidance please

Hello, I've been editing for a couple of years. Of all the pages I've edited on, some of the most controversial seem to be the alt-med topics. In particular the tone on the Rolfing article has gone from a workable truce between strongly opposing sides, to a much more hostile situation. I believe this is partly because one of the strong voices on the "Skeptic" side, who valued good logic and politeness, dropped off and now there is more of an outright power battle. Over the past 5 months, the article content has swayed strongly to the Skeptic viewpoint. There's been hot discussion on the Talk page, including a Request for Comments, which has resulted in a wide mix of opinions and no clear consensus for how to move forward. Since I'm the only semi-experienced editor on the other side of things, I'm having trouble holding ground. I believe we may be at a point of needing to escalate to some sort of arbitration, because yesterday one editor largely rewrote the article without anything resembling consensus. I've reverted to the last version but I suspect this is just the beginning. Now that editor has called in reinforcements from the Fringe Noticeboard. I need ways to call in help from a neutral viewpoint. Can you offer any guidance as to the next steps? Thanks.Karinpower (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS. 131.142.152.179 (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

CANVASS while ignoring relevant policies and ArbCom decisions. Where ArbCom enforcement applies, tread with extreme caution and be very familiar with all relevant content policies. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The CANVASS comment is really not fair. I'm not seeking opinions that line up with my own, but rather trying to find out how to better use WP. The system is tilted in favor of certain perspectives; posting on the Fringe noticeboard isn't viewed as canvassing but in a sense it is. I don't think there is an equivalent place that I can post to simply ask for neutral opinions. It's actually quite difficult for newer editors to get support on how to navigate these tricky situations. --Karinpower (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

When it comes to fringe theories and claims, FTN is the noticeboard to use.

When it comes to articles under ArbCom enforcement, anyone that's not willing to understand the relevant policies and ArbCom findings will find it extremely tricky to contribute. --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The system is tilted in favor of certain perspectives; posting on the Fringe noticeboard isn't viewed as canvassing but in a sense it is. That is true. Wikipedia is designed to give more weight to skeptical viewpoints than to credulous viewpoints, just as methodological naturalism is. This is intentional, and for the purposes of keeping inaccurate information off the wiki. While it is not perfect, it helps. If you have any doubt of this, I invite you to read a few 'controversial' topics on Conservapedia, then read about the same subject at a reliable reference library and see how incredibly inaccurate a wiki without such standards can be. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Since there is an open thread at WP:FT/N of the topic of Rolfing, that would seem an excellent place for discussion in pursuit of a wide consensus, if there is dispute. Alexbrn (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

login problems

One of my laptops was stolen from my car about a month ago. I've since tried to edit wikipedia on another laptop (this one), but can't log in as myself (jweaver28). I get a message about preventing session hijacking. I'll admit that I edit on a desktop and another laptop, as well as a minilaptop that I bought after the stolen laptop incident, but IMHO the screen's too small, and the other laptop I use has disk space limits (plus my dog knocked off a key that I can't seem to find)....64.134.197.195 (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I'm sorry to hear that you're having problems logging in. You might be better off posting about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where it will get the attention of editors with more technical expertise. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Question from new editor

Hi I am Ayaz Mir, I'm new here I wanna edit some articles but I'm feeling difficulty bcs of editing I don't know how to edit the way Wikipedia article shown so I wanna ask About How to edit or Create an article or a page ? Can anyone will help me ? THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by AyazMir (talk • contribs) 16:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Greetings AyazMir and Welcome to the Teahouse! From the Welcome messages posted at your talk page you might want to look at Help:Editing and New contributors' help page for assistance. Also when you create or respond to a message, please sign the message with ~~~~ (four tilde characters). Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

How to find a user?

I completed a request on Wikipedia Requests^[1] and want to notify the requester, whose name is on the request, but not a user name. How does one search for WP users? Drdaviss (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

References

^ https://wpx.wmflabs.org/requests/en/request/513

Special:ListUsers might help. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Drdaviss and Welcome to the Teahouse. In addition to Ian Thomson's answer above, you can try ideas at How to easily recall a username Tip-of-the-day for January 18th. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you, Ian and Joe. Drdaviss (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

How to make a summary board?

Hello, how do I make a summary board on the right ahead of a page like in almost all wikipedia pages? I do not know if you see what I mean. Thank you.

Robin Amnesty Thailand (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Robin Amnesty Thailand. I think what you mean is what we call an infobox. Basically, they give a condensed summary of an article off to the side. There are many different kinds of infoboxes, and each is custom-tailored to a specific topic. For example, there's {{infobox person}} for people, {{infobox film}} for films, and {{infobox company}} for companies. We also have other kinds of aids, such as navigational boxes or "navboxes". These help readers quickly locate related content, such as linking musicians and albums to a band. You can see some other items listed in our layout guidelines, which give a basic overview of how articles are generally presented. Don't worry if none of this makes sense at first; it can take a while to get the hang of Wikipedia's idiosyncratic templates and jargon. Just ask here if you have any questions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robin Amnesty Thailand. I have nothing to add to the excellent advice above, but having noticed the draft you are working on after seeing your question, I thought you might be interested in some feedback before you submit that draft for consideration to become and article. All of the sources you have cited thus far are of the organization, rather than reliable, secondary sources, about it written by third parties. Those are the types of sources that articles need to be predominantly based upon. You might look to a book search like this, a newspaper search like this, and a scholarly paper search like this for sources to use. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

How to keep articles in the nomination for speedy deletion policy? Tiger Gang Talk 09:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tiger Gang. The answer to your question very much depends on which of the criteria for speedy deletion the article has been cited in the deletion nomination. If the article lacks context, then the way to prevent its deletion is to add context; if it has no content, then the solution is to add content; etc. Do you have a specific article in mind? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: yes, i have one name in my mind which created by blocked user. The name of the article is Shree Harikul. Tiger Gang Talk 09:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused, Tiger Gang. You nominated the article for speedy deletion, but you seem to be asking how the article can be kept. Do you want the article to be deleted or kept? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the history of Shree Harikul Model Higher Secondary School, you seem to be re-adding the speedy deletion template after its removal. That's not the appropriate course of action. If a speedy deletion request is declined and you still think the article should be deleted, take it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: The article should be delete becaue it is against copyright violation. This article was created by blocked user. Tiger Gang Talk 09:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Can I ask where the text has been copied from, Tiger Gang? Also, please sign your posts as I have explained on your talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry If isn't copyright violation then it should be deleted because it is created by sockpupet of sarojupreti and this article was previously also nominated for speedy deletionTiger Gang Talk 09:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it or isn't it a copyright violation, Tiger Gang? Not everything created by a sockpuppet necessarily needs to be deleted. If the article is good, then it should be kept. If it is a copyright violation, then that needs to be dealt with. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry yes, it is 100% copyright violation. It is copied from internet which is now deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger Gang (talk • contribs) 10:26, 15 July 2016‎ (UTC)

In that case, the appropriate speedy deletion tag would be WP:G12, Tiger Gang, but you do need to provide evidence. If the source from which the article was copied is no longer online, it might still be available via Archive.org. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The article has been edited by more than 20 people since it was created, I can find no evidence that any of the content is copyrighted. Theroadislong (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Theroadislong Cordless Larry It doesn't contains any cite in google also. It should be deleted. MasterPiece2016 (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

You are free to nominate it for deletion via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, MasterPiece2016. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Already done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shree Harikul Model Higher Secondary School (2nd nomination). Thanks, Theroadislong. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@MasterPiece2016: You really should not be blanking the user talk pages of other editors like you've done at User talk:Mybaobei unless there's a really good policy-based reason for doing so. When you blanked the page, you not only removed your posts, but also a post made by another editor WMartin74. Since your account was only created yesterday, you probably wasn't aware that this kind of thing is not really considered OK on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has quite a number of policies and guidelines, including ones related to using talk pages. So, I suggest you talk a look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for reference. Talk pages are the primary way edits communicate with each other on Wikipedia, so knowing how to use them properly will help you avoid problems with other editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Featured article on a financial instrument?

I am searching for an featured article on a financial instrument. (I have searched for "stock", "bond", "derivatives" but none of them are rated FA. I then looked at "gold as an investment"---it arguably comes close to a financial instrument. This again is not FA but was a GA candidate once. Have you seen a FA on a financial instrument?)Amgodbole (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Amgodbole. We currently have 4,789 featured articles out of a total of 5,194,643 articles on the English Wikipedia, so the chances of there being one on any specific topic are slim. The place to look is Wikipedia:Featured articles#Business, economics, and finance. Perhaps you could try to improve an existing article with the aim of getting it to FA status? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry Thanks for your response. I am thinking about whether I can work on one specific article (where I am currently the main contributor) but I think before that I need to better understand/learn what an FA article for a financial instrument would look like. Would a World Book Encyclopedia/Encyclopedia Britannica article be a good proxy or would they fail the FA criteria? (after taking a look at the Encyclopedia Britannica article on "Futures" I am unsure).Amgodbole (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry I did check Wikipedia:Featured articles#Business, economics, and finance. I did not find an article on a financial instrument among the articles here.Amgodbole (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to say because I'm not that familiar with Britannica, Amgodbole. You mean this article, right? An obvious difference is in the sourcing - an FA article here would require very good sourcing, whereas Britannica don't appear to reference their articles. I suggest looking at some of our existing FA articles (even if they are in different areas), and the reviews that they received, to get a sense of what is expected. You could also seek advice via Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry Yes, I meant this article. While I have seen existing FA articles from other areas I have not seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance. Thanks for your help.Amgodbole (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I was rejected for the post being too specific how can I fix this?

I created a post about The BlinkNow Foundation, which is a very well-known foundation that funds the Kopila Valley School, Women's Center, Home and new campus in Surkhet Nepal. The foundation's CEO is Maggie Doyne, the CNN hero of the year from 2016. The BlinkNow Foundation's work has been sorted in multiple articles and was in Floortje's documentary in the Netherlands.

The post was rejected since it only "applies to the school in Nepal". Is there anything I can do to make the post more relevant? Or is the scope still too small!

Thank you in advance!!

Kopila Valley School (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

We already have an article on Maggie Doyne with a section on the BlinkNow Foundation. Any additional well-sourced information about the foundation could be added there. And we can certainly have a redirect from BlinkNow Foundation to that section. --agr (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kopila Valley School, You may want to change your username. Your current username suggests that it is used by an organization rather than an individual. See WP:ISU Gab4gab (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

What is ment by [Mark this page as patrolled] ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterPiece2016 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse MasterPiece2016. The "Mark this page as patrolled" means that another editor has reviewed an article in question (whether that article is a user page, newly created article, talk pages, etc.) to be appropriate for Wikipedia. It's usual use is for checking that the content(s) of the article doesn't violate any possible speedy deletion criteria, anything that might be proposed for deletion in according to issues that maybe listed (for example WP:GNG or WP:NOT), or if a template is placed for the article to be improved. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 06:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

16 July 2016

How to review new articles? MasterPiece2016 (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, MasterPiece2016, and welcome to the Teahouse! I think what you're looking for is WikiProject Articles for Creation's "How to get involved" section. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, upon viewing your user contributions and seeing how new you are to Wikipedia, it doesn't look like your quite ready to review new articles. I suggest editing some already-created articles first to get accustomed to the environment, rules, and guidelines of Wikipedia. I suggest you don't rush in to things. In the meantime, I've left a welcome message with a few links to those rules and guidelines on your talk page. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I am auto-confirmed user

Then, why my edit in this page Qandeel Baloch was shown to be as "Thank you for your edit, it will be reviewed shortly"? Rainbow Archer (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Because that there were unaccepted edits. 333 -blue 07:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Interaction of Wikipedia user groups and page protection levels
	Unregistered or newly registered	Confirmed or autoconfirmed	Extended confirmed	Template editor ^★	Admin	Interface admin	Appropriate for (See also: Wikipedia:Protection policy)
No protection	Normal editing						The vast majority of pages. This is the default protection level.
Pending changes	All users can edit Edits by unregistered or newly registered editors (and any subsequent edits by anyone) are hidden from readers who are not logged in until reviewed by a pending changes reviewer or administrator. Logged-in editors see all edits, whether accepted or not.						Infrequently edited pages with high levels of vandalism, BLP violations, edit-warring, or other disruption from unregistered and new users.
Semi	Cannot edit	Normal editing					Pages that have been persistently vandalized by anonymous and registered users. Some highly visible templates and modules.
Extended confirmed	Cannot edit		Normal editing				Specific topic areas authorized by ArbCom, pages where semi-protection has failed, or high-risk templates where template protection would be too restrictive.
Template	Cannot edit			Normal editing			High-risk or very-frequently used templates and modules. Some high-risk pages outside of template space.
Full	Cannot edit				Normal editing		Pages with persistent disruption from extended confirmed accounts.
Interface	Cannot edit					Normal editing	Scripts, stylesheets, and similar objects central to operation of the site or that are in other editors' user spaces.
^★ The table assumes a template editor also has extended confirmed privileges, which is almost always the case in practice.
Other modes of protection: Create protection Move protection Upload protection Office protection Cascade protection view talk edit

notability

Hello there, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia & finding it very confusing. I've edited here before, but never written an entry from scratch, & my edits have been accepted. I've tried to write an entry for Jude Cook (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jude_Cook), & although it says on Tseung Kwan O's talk page “The NYTimes reviews is a sufficient source for the notability of Jude Cook” it has been rejected on the grounds of notability. Another editor felt that it wasn't notable because the novel had "meh reviews"; I found the reviews balanced, & many were very positive. And I thought, anyway, that the amount of coverage, & the fact the novel was published by major publishing houses in both the UK & the US, would qualify Cook as notable, whether the reviews were positive or negative. Please can you help me with the apparent contradiction between what is on Tseung Kwan O's talk page and the page being declined? Thank you very much. Celeryqueen (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Celeryqueen: Draft:Jude Cook is about the author, not the book; so it is the author's notability that needs to be established. This needs significant discussion of him in reliable independent sources. The first two references are to interviews with him, and so not independent; the third does not mention him; the fourth and fifth mention him, but without discussion. The last four are all about his book Byron Easy. You might find it easier to get an article about Byron Easy accepted. Maproom (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Maproom. The reason I included the third article is because it is about his band, as clarified in the text. I'm really confused here now. I will try to do as you suggest and do an entry on Byron Easy but surely it is an author's book that makes them notable?

Celeryqueen (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sympathetic to User:Maproom's reply to you and their detailed remarks on your references are helpful. However, for the notability of authors we have WP:AUTHOR. This says "The person has created ... a significant or well-known work ... In addition, such work must have been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.". It should not be relevant to notability whether the reviews are good or bad. You can certainly have an article about a person and their works and suitable coverage about the person and/or their works should be considered relevant. However, despite what most people will tell you, notability assessments are largely subjective and everyone has their own opinion. You have been rather unlucky with some of the people who turned up to review your article. Thincat (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that it meets some of the notablity guidelines. 333 -blue 11:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Time zone for edits

Why is all the time in UTC? Is it possible to change the time zone so that I can see when posts are made in relation to my time zone? Thank you for your response. Gordon410 (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Gordon410, and welcome to the Teahouse! Lucky for you, there is a way to change that. While the method doesn't affect all times (such as those in a page's history), it does change the time on things like talk page posts. Also, this only affects the way you see times (not others), and only while you're logged in. Here's how you change the time zone shown for talk posts:

Go to the Gadgets tab in your Preferences.
Scroll down to "Appearance".
Look under "Appearance" for a checkbox that says "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time" and check the box.
Click "Save", and you're done!

There is a more advanced method of doing this which changes how it can look, but I'm not gonna go into that here. You can find that method here.

-- Gestrid (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Gordon410. Let me try to answer the first sentence of your question. Wikipedia is obviously a worldwide project, with editors contributing in every time zone. We need a standardized clock for this project, based one one time zone. "UTC" stands for Coordinated Universal Time in French, and that is the modern successor to the old Greenwich Mean Time that I remember from my childhood. It is the reliable, standardized way to keep track of time on worldwide projects. Though some editors find it jarring, I like the constant reminder that, living in California, I am seven hours behind the time in London, where worldwide standardized time originated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Understandable. Gordon410 (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Gadget or Plugin to Identify Who Authored a Word or Sentence

Does anyone know of a tool that would allow me to highlight a word within a Wikipedia article and provide information about when and who added the content? Naturally one could deduce who/when the content was added by slowly working your way back through the page history, but that could take an eternity. Niubrad (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"WikiBlame" may do close to what you want. From the article do "View history" then, quite near the top, "Revision history search". This takes you to WikiBlame where you can search for the word or phrase you are interested in. If the word appears several times in the article (or if it used to) then you will have to select your search carefully to avoid finding a wrong instance of the word. It can be a bit slow but quicker than working back! If that fails I go back to the first edit of the year, and back by years to find a time before the edit I am looking for. Then I go to the edit after 1 July of the right year, then April/October depending on what I found in July, etc. Hope this helps a bit. If anyone has a better solution, I'd like to hear as well! Thincat (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikiblame is the best option. It works better with a phrase than a single word, but I use this tool extensively.--S Philbrick (Talk) 11:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleted article - G5

Hi, a page I was working on, created by someone else, was deleted under "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". Do i have any recourse or is the only option to create a new article for the same subject? Many thanks Eartha78 (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This may refer to Rita Montero? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

If you think that the article was good, the best thing to do would be to create the article yourself. This would be a case where Requests for Undeletion should be able to get the article moved into your user space. You can't get an article undeleted into your user space for copyvio, or for a few other offenses such as being an attack page, but the purpose of G5 is simply to discourage sockpuppetry. Create the article again. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The page has been restored to Draft:Rita Montero. If Eartha78 thinks that there are no problems with it or anyone else, they can move it to mainspace again. Feel free to request it on my talk page if help is needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your help! Eartha78 (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing school

I would like to become a better Wikipedia editor. Are there any courses or schools I could enter that teach this? Of course I know this probably does not exist, but the idea of setting an online school up seems useful. Thank you for your reply. Gordon410 (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Gordon410. The closest thing we have to what you're looking for would probably be The Wikipedia Adventure, which is a course designed to help you edit in about an hour or so. Otherwise, there may be some third-party sites out there to help you, but I'm not too sure. JudgeRM (talk to me) 13:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

We also host the complete text of John Broughton's Wikipedia – The Missing Manual, which can serve as a sort of course on Wikipedia editing and behavior (though it may be a bit out-of-date in some respects). Deor (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Good question, @Gordon410:. Mostly we learn as we go along. Make a mistake, see it undone, ask in the article's talk page. Not quick, but it works. There is also a Wikipedia:Education program that encourages professors to include WP editing, often with the aim of writing a term paper online. Far as I know there isn't a whole course only about Wikipedia. There are also Edit-a-thons, mostly in big cities though I taught in one in Summit, New Jersey. They are only for one day but we do get studious people who learn quite a bit in those hours. You may also be near other Wikipedians and can get together in a Wikipedia:Meetup to talk and show each other how to do things. Sometimes it's not enough people to crowd a small dinner table; that doesn't mean you can't meet nice people and learn something.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim.henderson (talk • contribs) 15:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

How to deal with inappropriate user name, (well-done) COI editing without disclosure?

I could use advice from a more experienced editor.

I came across a BLP article today which I feel presents two concerns, and I'm not sure how to deal with them as the editor who made some recent concerning edits does not have a user page.

Here are the concerns:

1) The editor's name is almost identical to a foundation which the BLP's subject established and which is described in the article. That's a no-no, correct?

2) Because of the similarity between user name and article subject, I assume there is COI editing going on. I have no problem with the tone of the article--I feel it presents facts in an encyclopedic way; I just have a concern with the apparent absence of a disclosure.

If an experienced editor could provide guidance on how to proceed, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Kekki1978 (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Kekki1978. I don't understand your point about them not having a user page. All editors have user talk pages, which is where you can leave messages for them. If no messages have been posted for them yet, then you can start the page. It is probably worth posting about the case at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard though. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Kekki1978, inappropriate usernames, including those that seem promotional and imply shared use (such as the name of a company or foundation), should be reported at WP:UAA. Unless the account seems to be for promotion only, the user will probably be soft-blocked and asked to change username. If you'd like tell us which article you're concerned about, someone else might take a look. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Cordless Larry and Justlettersandnumbers. Thank you both for your responses. Cordless, thank you for explanation that anyone can start any user's talk page if one hasn't been created by that user yet; I didn't know that. Re. my concerns, I found two relevant templates that post a message to the user's talk page to bring the username concern to the editor's attention and to invite the user to explain and defend the current username, change the username, or create a new account under a different username. (These are subst:Uw-username and subst:Uw-coi-username.) I'm going to try to figure out how to use these in communicating directly with the editor. Thank you again for your assistance. Kekki1978 (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

In the circumstances you describe, Kekki1978, {{subst:Uw-coi-username}} sounds like the appropriate template to use. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, yes, if someone could take a look at the article and the username, I would appreciate it, as this situation is currently over my head. Plus, I have a strong interest in some of the topics the article discusses and I would like to recuse myself. The article is Jay Ruderman and the username is Rudermanfdn. I'm now seeing numerous problems with the article: there are external links (instead of citations) throughout; I doubt the photo was properly made available under Creative Commons; a previous version of the article was deleted due to copyright violations (so perhaps there are current copyright violations?); ... If I proceeded I feel like I wouldn't address everything properly. TIA. Kekki1978 (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, thanks very much for addressing the concerns about the article and the username. It was helpful to see how you did it. Kekki1978 (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

how will this question help u out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebeccamalleshpalya (talk • contribs) 06:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Rebeccamalleshpalya, thanks for asking the question. I found it helpful to see how a more experienced editor handled something that needed to be done so that I (and others who read this) can do something like this independently in the future. It's not a question of helping me out, it's a question of helping Wikipedia out. And welcome to Wikipedia. Going forward, please sign your comments on talk pages, including this one, by typing four tildes, with a tilde being this character, "~", at the end of your entries. The four tildes will translate into your username, a date- and time-stamp, and a link that will enable others to communicate directly with you. There's a lot to learn, but your contributions are appreciated. Cheers. Kekki1978 (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

What is a reliable source

I have provided reference to three publications, all reputable, however in the space of an hour or so my submission was declined. These books each confirm some part of the content of my article. I do not understand what further verification I can give. Can you give me guidance?The lockleys (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, The lockleys. I presume that this refers to Draft:Coal Meters Committee? If so, you say that the sources "each confirm some part of the content of my article", but how is the reader to know which parts of the draft are supported by which source? Please see Help:Referencing for beginners, which explains how to use footnote references. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that this draft is at least partly a hoax. It claims that the Coal Meters Committee was "formally appointed by Edward 1 in 1306". But according to this reliable source^[1] it was "Founded in 1832". Maproom (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

^ "COAL METERS COMMITTEE". AIM25.

That doesn't look like a hoax, but like a claim by a modern organization to historical antiquity. Such claims, sometimes of questionable correctness, are common. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

When should we use block quotes in an article?

Does Wikipedia have a standard for when to use block quotes vs. in-text quotes?

For example, APA Style instructs authors to use a block quote if the quote contains more than 40 words.

Thanks!

Mark - Mark D Worthen PsyD 03:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Markworthen. Wikipedia's Manual of style pretty much agrees with the APA on this matter. Approximately 40 words is the cutoff point, although no one should battle about 38 words as opposed to 43 words. That type of dispute can quickly turn disruptive. Let it be. The shortcut is MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Cullen³²⁸! I really appreciate your fast response. :O) Mark D Worthen PsyD 04:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

is this a source I can cite for wikipedia

Hi I would like to know if this source is ok to use for citing a wikipedia article => http://www.mediasearch.com.au/celebrity/article/misslatinauastralia2015 (Australianblackbelt (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Australianblackbelt. That looks like a reprint of a press release to me, and if I am correct, it is not a reliable, independent source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That's what I thought but then I saw that the writer of the article Carmine Pascuzzi quotes certain people=> Estela Tapia, National Director of Miss Latina Australia 2015 stated, "We have so many gorgeous and talented Latinas in Australia. Over the past few months we have been scouting around Australia for the most beautiful girls who are all deserving in representing Australia.'

Also => Gary Lee, Managing Director of the Pageant said that “Miss Latina Australia 2015 is a great platform to empower intelligent, passionate and talented young girls to make a mark for themselves. Through this contest they will make some amazing networks, connections and life-long friendships.’

Those are the kind of standard, promotional, boilerplate quotations that are expected of people promoting such an event. If it is not a straight reprint of a press release, in my opinion it is highly likely to be a superficial rewrite of a press release. I see no evidence of independent reporting there. I am certain that the purpose of this content is to advertise this event, and that is not what Wikipedia is all about. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Question Regarding References

If I edit an article but cannot cite a single reference for the facts that I edit into it, should I omit the edit or leave it in the article anyway? Fix bi zed rut (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fix bi zed rut. One of Wikipedia's core content policies is verifiability, which means that a reader must be able to verify any controversial assertions in our articles. We do that by citing references. So, how do you know that this information you want to add to the encyclopedia is accurate, except through what reliable sources say? It cannot be through your own personal experiences or personal research. That does not belong in an encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Adminship

How I can make an admin? If there is any nomination someone nominate me for adminship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bindopug (talk • contribs) 05:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Bindopug, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can read about the process by which administrators are appointed at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. A prerequisite is that an editor has a decent amount of experience editing Wikipedia. Since you only started editing two days ago, I would suggest that you give it some time before thinking about a nomination. The majority of tasks that need doing on Wikipedia (most importantly, content creation) can be done without being an admin. Not being one hasn't stopped me from making a nuisance of myself, and I've been contributing for more than ten years now. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Rajinikanth filmography

It is currently a FLC. But there haven't been many commenters, and I am not going to ask each editor to comment in order to avoid WP:VOTESTACK. Is there any way to get more comments to prevent the article from being archived? 08:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are requesting here. But Rajinikanth filmography starts with an extensive biography of Rajinikanth, which presumably duplicates, or possibly contradicts, the material at Rajinikanth. The filmography ought to be a filmography, its biographical content should be deleted, or merged into the content of Rajinikanth. Maproom (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

JS problems...

I'm trying to add some links to the top link page (where it says my username, talk, sandbox, prefrences, beta, log out, etc...) I want to add a link to my desk (User:The Pancake of Heaven!/Desk) and the RRTF task force main page (WP:RRTF); is there a way to do this via Javascript coding? (If you can give me the code too, that'll be great....) Thanks! → The Pancake of Heaven! 10:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:The Pancake of Heaven!. Try the below in your common JavaScript. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

$( document ).ready( function() {
  mw.util.addPortletLink(
    'p-personal',
    mw.util.wikiGetlink( 'User:The Pancake of Heaven!/Desk' ),
    'Desk',
    'pt-Desk',
    'My desk',
    null,
    '#pt-preferences'
  );
  mw.util.addPortletLink(
    'p-personal',
    mw.util.wikiGetlink( 'Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Rick Riordan task force' ),
    'RRTF',
    'pt-RRTF',
    'Rick Riordan task force',
    null,
    '#pt-preferences'
  );
});

@PrimeHunter: Thanks! → The Pancake of Heaven! 11:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Cropping a picture for a userbox

I'd like to make a userbox for Habitica users, but I'm having trouble with the picture for the box. Here's my rough draft:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Myoglobin/Userboxes/Habitician

There is already an existing image (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Habitica_Logo,_from_gamification_website_by_OCDevel.png), but the text takes up too much space in the UBX. I already got permission from the Habitica team to make this UBX, but when I try to upload a logo from their press kit, I can't since my userpage isn't an actual article.

Is there a way I can crop the existing image without uploading another? Thanks! Myoglobin (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: Turns out that the image I was considering cropping is also non-free, so I can't use it in the UBX. It was removed with this text: (You may not use a non-free image in an infobox. The image must be free. This image is licensed fair fair use--only in the location as licensed. F.U. images may not be used outside the mainspace (with a few (WP:NFEXMPexceptions))

How can I resolve this? Should I just plan on not using any image for the UBX? Myoglobin (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

You could use a link to the article on Habitica in place of an image. (I've also had this problem in the past, because nonfree stuff isn't allowed in userspace at all.) Or you can use a free image that has something to do with Habitica, like I did here on some of my created ubx, specifically the book ones. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Please help the person who broke my talkpage!

Could someone please gently rectify the message at the bottom of my talkpage in a manner that allows the Tech Tools Web person to get the help he needs (and I don't)? Thanks much, folks! Hang in there. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, but that editor has been blocked indefinitely for advertising. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Third party sources

Hi there,

I've recently submitted a new Wikipedia page re: TravelManagers Australia.

The page has been declined twice, with two editors citing that there was not enough third party news sources.

I'm a little confused, as I've listed six sources (including really high profile website, Bloomberg, and The Daily Telegraph - one of Australia's biggest newspapers).

Can anyone help me figure out why this page keeps getting knocked back despite ample sources?

Thank you!

Travelbug2016 (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Travelbug2016. The Bloomberg reference is a routine generic business directory listing which does not contribute to notability, since Bloomberg strives to list every corporate business everywhere. The Daily Telegraph source is an interview of one of the company's key people, and does not talk about the company itself at all, and therefore is worthless for establishing notability. We require independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic, the company known as TravelManagers Australia. Your draft says "Much like a personal trainer works with clients individually on their fitness goals, PTMs work to help their customers achieve their unique travel goals." This is overtly promotional advertising language that belongs on the company's website, not in a neutral encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. There are plenty of other websites that offer that service, if that is what you want. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Can I just translate already existing articles?

I'm from Republic of Moldova and our language here is Romanian. Many articles have no romanian variant or articles about my country have no english varinats. So, can I just translate the existing ones into the needed language and then link them? Freackindors (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it would be great if you could. The important thing, if you translate existing articles is that you acknowledge the existing article. Have a look at this link for an example of what I'm talking about. If you need further help you can ask here or ask me on my talk page (link). I speak some basic Romanian so I could help a little bit with the translation. Valenciano (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Confirming what Valenciano said, Freackindors, please look at WP:Translate us. --ColinFine (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, guys Freackindors (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

permission to use a picture on an article

I was given permission to use a picture of the voice actor Chris Rager from the website behindthevoiceactors.com, but they said the image doesn't belong to them, and they never stated who it did belong to so now I'm at a fork in the road. do I use the picture or not.MachoManRandySandwich (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello MachoManRandySandwich, since they do not own the image, and neither does the site, and you cannot find out who actually does own the image, I would advise you to avoid using the picture due to copyright concerns. See WP:IUP for more details. JudgeRM (talk to me) 15:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi MachoManRandySandwich and welcome to the Teahouse. The image had been deleted from Commons as a copyright violation [1], and rightly so. There's a message about at your talk page on Commons. Using a picture with someone else's permission is a fairly complicated procedure which must be followed to the letter. First of all, the permission must come from the copyright holder (usually the actual photographer). Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#You cannot donate what someone else owns has an introduction and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission explains how to properly request and document a donated image. Voceditenore (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

okay, thanks guys for the advice, I appreciate the help.MachoManRandySandwich (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Box Removal

Hello, I wrote an article about B. Wayne Hughes, Jr and it was marked for speedy deletion last Friday. I contested the speedy deletion & made edits and it appears that the page will remain online. However, there is still a box on the page saying that it is 'Marked for Speedy Deletion'. My question is how can I have this box removed? Thank you! Oceanprofiles (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Oceanprofiles. The box will not be automatically removed if you simply contest the speedy deletion; the only way the box can be removed if someone goes in and removes it manually (which someone has done); this means that the speedy deletion has been declined and the article can stay on Wikipedia, barring it doesn't get deleted via articles for deletion. I should also say that, if you created the article being speedy deleted, you can not remove the box yourself; you can only contest it. JudgeRM (talk to me) 16:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

For some reason, it took a bit longer than is usual for this speedy deletion template to be removed. Decisions about whether to speedy delete an article or not are usually taken more quickly than seems to have happened in this case. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Oceanprofiles (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

how to create my company's wiki

I am an event manager, i have opened a=my own venture with the name of Jovial Folks Creations. I want to make wiki of it. But when i putted all the information of it to the wiki, and created a page, it showed an error that, it seems i am trying to promote my company only.

Now let me know How can I get it done.Kaizenankit (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Kaizenankit, Are you talking about User:Kaizenankit/sandbox?—Constanstin 09:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Kaizenankit. Almost certainly, you can't, at least at present. If Wikipedia is to have an article about your company, it will be Wikipedia's, not yours or your company's, and you are strongly discouraged from writing or editing it. Such an article should be based nearly 100% on what people who have no connection with the company have published about it: Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what a company (or any other subject) says or wants to say about itself. If it is a new venture, it is likely that there is no significant independent material published about it; and in that case it is presently impossible for anybody to write an acceptable Wikipedia article about it.

If in a few months a couple of people unconnected with the company have decided to write substantial articles about it (not based on interviews or press releases) then it is possible that Wikipedia could have an article about it, preferably not written by you. If that happens, you will be welcome to make suggestions for improving the article, but will have no control whatever over what actually goes into the article. Please read about Conflict of interest and Notability for companies. --ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

How to change the title of a draft article I just submitted

Just submitted an article, can't figure out how to change the title so people can search for it. Can you help me? DaneGuberudSF (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

DaneGuberudSF: the title of a draft doesn't really matter. If it's accepted as an article, the editor who accepts it will move it to article space with a suitable name. Maproom (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you have created one draft, which was originally untitled in your sandbox, and is now named Draft:Serenity Forge. That is the title that it should have, in my opinion. You can change the title of a draft, like an article in article space, by moving it. Do you have another question? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Social media pages as external links?

I've seen some BLP articles that include links to a famous person's social media pages, so I'm wondering, what is Wikipedia's stance on the use of social media links in the "external links" section of a BLP? Is it ok to include them, or no? Lupine453 (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lupine453: see WP:ELMINOFFICIAL for guidance on the use of links to a subect's social media outlets. Nthep (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

How do i make the artical i suggested relevant for wikipedia to post o their site

I tried to have a page created for Avalanche The Architect a battle rapper out of Canada.99.243.193.145 (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The reason for the decline of the article is spelled out at Draft:Avalanche The Architect, IP editor. You should also consult Help:Referencing for beginners, to learn how to format your citations. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and please do not attack the draft reviewer. That is a bad way to get the draft accepted and a good way to get blocked. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a person with the same name of another that is linked in the wrong place

I noticed in the Wiki on "Cleburne, Texas" under the notable persons there is a Sonny Burgess. This Sonny Burgess referenced is from Arkansas, when in fact there is a much younger Sonny Burgess from Cleburne who is also a singer. How can I remove the wrong Sonny Burgess from being linked to Cleburne, Texas?Mattsplatt1970 (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse! Thanks for nociting this. I fixed it with this edit. What I did is, I redirected the link to a disambiguated article named Sonny Burgess (Texas artist), that doesn't exist (yet). That name can be changed if necessary, but at least the link no longer leads readers to the wrong person. Gap9551 (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!Mattsplatt1970 (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Overall Balance of Person Article

Hello, I am a fairly new editor. Please could I ask which senior Wikipedia editor decides about the overall balance of an article about a deceased person? If there is for example, entire paragraphs referenced about what other persons say (whether positive or negative) about the person in a published interview article, whom decides whether those references are necessary or balanced to the overall flow of the article? Or is it just the various editors that need to look at the balance of an article and resolve issues on the talk page?GrassRoots (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, GrassRoots, and thank you for an excellent question. If you mention a specific article, Teahouse hosts may be able to offer a more detailed analysis. But in general, our articles should comply with the neutral point of view. This means that the article should summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about the topic, avoiding giving undue weight to minority viewpoints. "Senior editors" are just editors with more experience but have no more power than any other editor, and even administrators and arbitrators have no special power when it comes to article content. To the extent that an editor complies with our policies and guidelines, a fairly new editor like you has exactly the authority as a seven year veteran like me. So, I encourage you to do your best to improve the article, and if other editors object to your changes, discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

[1] ttps://wpx.wmflabs.org/requests/en/request/513

[2] "COAL METERS COMMITTEE". AIM25.

[1]

[1]