Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 536

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 530

←

Archive 534

→

Pain editor / conflict of interest

I recently come across a new article about IntraFind. It has one editor named "Sonja at IntraFind" that even states on here userpage User:Sonja_at_IntraFind that "paid by IntraFind Software AG for their contributions to Wikipedia".

For me this looks like an ad written by someone that has a conflict of interest. It this type of editing allowed? Runarb (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, conflict of interest (COI) editors are allowed to edit if they disclose their COI, which this person has done. If the article is not neutral, however, another editor can either work on it to make it more neutral or add the {{advert}} tag to the top. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I hope I didn't do anything wrong, because I tried really hard to adhere to all Wikipedia rules and make the article neutral, especially compared to others from the list of enterprise search vendors. I'd be glad if other editors take a look at it and make it better where there is wrong. --Sonja at IntraFind (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The article has been speedy deleted by User:Seraphimblade for being "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I think that answers me question. Runarb (talk) 07:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Need help selecting an infobox template for a new article on a person (writer & music producer)

I'd like to create an infobox for a new article I've drafted. I'd like the simplest infobox template possible that can be used for a person who is a writer and a music producer. The less info in the infobox, the better, since the main body of the article is extensive. Please tell me what very simple infobox template to use and how to find it! Thank you! 76.91.1.61 (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. The most obvious choice is Template:Infobox writer. If that does not meet your needs, the more general Template:Infobox person is a possibility. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

As for simplicity, any template field that you leave blank will not display in the infobox as seen by readers. So you can limit the infobox to a handful of the most relevant fields if you wish. That being said, the purpose of an infobox is to display a range of relevant, objective data about the topic in a structured format. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi IP 76.91.1.61. In addition to what Cullen328 posted above, you can also try the following: (1) looking for some Wikipedia's featured articles or good articles which are similar to the type of draft you are working on and see if one of them has an infobox that you like. If you find one, click on the edit tab and look for the infobox template markup near the top of the article. It will look something like {{Infobox XXXX}}; or (2) looking through Category:Infobox templates for something that you think might work for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

To throw in yet another two cents' worth, I find an Infobox is more useful when the article is lengthy. It saves me from looking all the way through the article if I just need a basic piece of information. So fill in just the fields you need to summarize the significant information that is in the body of the article, and leave the others blank (as Cullen mentioned).--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Judy Travis, previously deleted articles, YouTubers

This is a two-part question. I reviewed Draft:Judy Travis and declined it on notability grounds. I pointed out that it had previously been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy Travis, and said that I would only accept the draft if the author could show that the draft was better than the deleted version, so that they would have to request its temporary undeletion at Requests for Undeletion. User:Mr RD then replied:

Hi, I created this draft from an entirely new point and it is different from the old page which was deleted through AFD. Judy is a notable YouTube personality like others (Jenna Marbles, Michelle Phan and Philip DeFranco). She has been covered by many news websites which I have already mentioned in the draft. Please let me know how I can improve upon this article and any specific issues that you think are with this draft? I'll be highly thankful to you.

My first question is whether other editors agree that the burden is on the author of a draft about which the subject was previously deleted to show improvement.

My second question is whether there are notability guidelines for people who are said to be notable YouTube personalities. From time to time I review drafts on people who are said to be famous YouTubers. I know that YouTube itself is not a reliable source, but that doesn’t mean that YouTubers are or are not notable. Are there notability criteria for YouTubers, or is it strictly general notability guidelines? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: In general, YouTube performers are entertainers, and are comparable to TV and movie actors. In my opinion, WP:ENTERTAINER is the appropriate special notability guideline, which is really nothing more than a proxy for the General notability guideline. Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is required, and statements such as "Wow! YouTuber X has Y million followers!" are nowhere near enough. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you agree that the author should request that the deleted draft be undeleted temporarily so that a reviewer can verify that the new draft is better than the deleted article? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Some reviewers are admins. Maybe there should be a template or {{AFC submission}} parameter for subjects where an article has previously been deleted. It could link the deleted page name (given as an option when it's not the draft name), say the contents can only be viewed by administrators, mention Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, and add a category like Category:Pending AfC submissions with previously deleted articles. Admin reviewers could then watch the category. I'm not active at AfC but if it's a common issue then you might suggest something like this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Using Old english font (LOW PRIORITY)

Greeting everyone, Using Old English Text MT feels great. Please learn us how to use it, and of course naming modal, to manage "USER" color, turn it to white, or maybe remove it. Appreciate ya'll, Amir R. Pourkashef 20:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir R. Pourkashef (talk • contribs)

Hello, Amir R. Pourkashef. It is very hard to understand what you mean, but I guess that you are asking about changing the appearance of your signature in Wikipedia. If that is so, please look at WP:Signature. --ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey there, --ColinFine. Nuh, my signature is arranged already. I mean the our title name above the page. With ♥ Amir R. Pourkashefsky (talk • contribs) 12:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Amir R. Pourkashef: There isn't a direct way of doing that but there is a way of putting alternatively formatted text over the top - see Wikipedia:User page design center/Style#Alternate page title header. Nthep (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

How to re-propose previously deleted article

Hello everyone,

Previously, someone made an article about the online platform Peace Revolution, but it was marked for deletion, failing to establish notability. After seven years, i would like "re-propose" the article and have written a draft to that effect at User:S Khemadhammo/Peace Revolution. I think notability can now be established. A user involved in the previous deletion advised me to move this draft into "Draft space 7" for review. I have, however, not found any page with name. Please suggest how to proceed in re-proposing this previously deleted article.----S Khemadhammo (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I am asking a similar question below, from the standpoint of a reviewer considering an article rather than an author writing an article in place of a deleted article. If I were reviewing your draft, I would want to see the deleted version, which would mean that it would need to be temporarily undeleted. You can request its temporary undeletion at Requests for Undeletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi S Khemadhammo. Please post a link for context when you refer to a post. I guess you refer to [1] which said "Draft Space7". I guess "7" was a typo. Draft Space is the Draft namespace (see Wikipedia:Drafts). I have moved the page to Draft:Peace Revolution and added a box with a submit button. Before submitting you may mention that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peace Revolution was seven years ago and the new draft has more sources. The deleted page is only visible to administrators. It had six sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Robert McClenon and PrimeHunter, thank you for your advice. I have already submitted the article, when I read your comments here. I am not sure whether undeleting the 2009 article would help, as that article was written by other contributors. Requesting undeletion sounds rather a serious procedure to me, which needs administrator apporval, but if you are saying it will help in evaluating the new article, then I will request undeletion. Any indications how long the evaluation will take of the new draft proposed?--S Khemadhammo (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Articles for Creation is currently very heavily backlogged, and it will take about a month before your draft is reviewed. I know that if I were the reviewer and I saw that an article had been deleted, and that a draft was a replacement for the article, I would compare the draft against the deleted article. I am aware that the contributors are different. However, the deletion went to the question of notability of the subject, and the conclusion was that the subject wasn't notable in 2009. I would want to ensure that things have changed, because I don't want to accept an article knowing that it is about to be nominated for deletion again. That is one of the basic questions for a reviewer. That is my opinion as a reviewer. (I know that I was once told by an author that I shouldn't pay attention to the deletion discussion because the deletion discussion was probably wrong. I didn't listen. Rather, I considered that advice and disregarded it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Having read the draft, I am still unclear about what Peace Revolution is. It's an "online platform" which "offers fellowships" – how many fellowships? In what countries? How did it raise the money to fund them? Maproom (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I have requested undeletion now. Thanks for the tip, I understand your point. Maproom, some of that information is actually in the article, but perhaps not organized well enough. I'll try to fix that. As for information not provided yet, I'll see if I can find any sources about that.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

HTML and wiki markup in citation templates

I have read at Template:Citation § COinS that one should not include HTML or wiki markup in cite templates, such as {{cite book}}, as these contaminate the COinS metadata embedded in Wikipedia pages. That includes everything: ''x'' for italics and   for non-breaking spaces.

Are there any exceptions? For instance, to record CO₂ in a title, can one use CO<sub>2</sub> or {{co2}}? Surely the HTML tags can be stripped out before creating the metadata? Or should one prioritize typesetting in a Wikipedia article (and use such markup) over the COinS metadata (which wants only raw text)? Any guidance would be helpful. Finally I searched the Teahouse archive and found nothing on this topic. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison: you might want to ask this question at Help talk:Citation Style 1 where I'm sure you'll get a reply. Nthep (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has now transferred to Help talk:Citation Style 1 § CO2 markup in cite templates. Thank you Nthep. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Page was deleted in September, would like to get a copy so I can make adjustments and resubmit

Hello,

The first page I've ever created for Wikipedia was deleted on Sept. 2nd by MBisanz. I've looked through all forms but cannot figure out how to get it back so I can make revisions as per their reasons for deletion.

Can you please help?

Thank you, DeannaRosewoodva (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rosewoodva: You can request the article be restored as a draft so you can work on it at WP:REFUND RudolfRed (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

All my edits were just reverted, what do I do?

Flyer22 Reborn is accusing me of sockpuppeting and using ouithn to revert my edits without as much as talking to me. I've have enough arguing from the political debates, is their a way to address this without an edit war? Doesn't check user make this sort of thing pointless? An Inconvenient Truth (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@An Inconvenient Truth: Welcome to the Teahouse. According to your edit history, you are a very new editor with only 39 edits over the last ten days. You have made a series of major edits to many controversial articles, including several having to do with sexuality. That happens to be the topic area where Flyer22 Reborn edits heavily, and that editor has an excellent record of detecting sockpuppets editing such articles. I find it a bit odd that a very new editor with only 39 edits even knows what "checkuser" means. I do not know if you are a sockpuppet or not. But I think that it is fair to say that your pattern of editing raises legitimate questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I feel complimented...sort of, that was very direct and I appreciate that. I suppose it is unusual to know about check user, I was wondering how that tied into electronic privacy after learning about doxing and electronic privacy advocate Steve Mann. Good record keeping is though I think part of maintaining a good record and that involves maintaining good diplomatic skills like being forward with accusations.

As a side note on the quick succession of controversial edits, I was trying to make this a class project for an editathon centered around politically activist topics. To be fair, a fair share of controversial topics are open to newcomers but a lot of the big name ballot issues are fences in as protected pages. I get that, but it makes the scopes of the editathons kind of limited to more trivial topics like pop culture or lesser known historical events that less people care about...hopefully, probably not. I'm not recommending wikipedia open up the door to ip vandals but, some kind of formalized waver for academic institutions would be awesome and increase collaboration between Wikimedia and schools and universities I think.

I don't have much to add on Mann at the moment so I'm fine with not editing; it seems like it would just reverted anyways so why bother? I hate to be glum but there's nothing I can really do. An Inconvenient Truth (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@An Inconvenient Truth: Since you say you have been participating in a class project and that involved an edit-a-thon, then please provide a link to the Wikipedia pages about the class project and that edit-a-thon about "politically activist topics". I would definitely like to learn more about that class and that edit-a-thon.

Articles are protected only when they have a chronic history of disruptive vandalism. You can always post suggestions for positive improvements on their talk pages.

If you make positive contributions here, then your edits will not be reverted. I have made over 42,000 edits here, and only a very tiny percentage have been reverted. That is because I always make improving the encyclopedia my top priority. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you have made no edits to Steve Mann, so I am unsure why you mention that particular topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Well the idea to make it Wikipedia related was mine, the project was to do digital activism and I aborted the idea upon seeing the barriers, the project worked out well in the end though I'd glad to say, until this snafu happened anyways. I mentioned Steve Mann in the future tense as well, sorry if I didn't make that clear. What I was trying to say is I had only had one activist subject I could think of left: electronics and privacy, and than the revisions interrupted that which sucks. That's all; I'll stop talking about plans for the future and my reasons for being here, I clearly don't have a future anyways.

I didn't really think it was worth putting that information on a user page. I mean, what's the point of having a user page anyways, it has nothing to do with building the encyclopedia really, and it's not a place to talk to people. It's not a sandbox or a page under construction. It kind of just seems like some kind of trophy room for barn stars and selected favorite edits, or a facebook page with I presume more restrictions on it I can read somewhere. No external links right? Does it look bad if I don't have a user page? I'll make one than but it really seems like more bother updating than it's worth and it's not like I have barnstars to display.

So should I add a retired template, how long does the sock puppet investigation take or is there not actually an investigation and Flyer is just calling me a sockpuppet and reverting all my edits? I'm confused, do you have roll back and the ability to revert their revisions? An Inconvenient Truth (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@An Inconvenient Truth: We always welcome new editors with a genuine commitment to improving the encyclopedia, who tell the truth. So, were the college class and the edit-a-thon you mentioned real or "virtual"? A user page is optional but very useful for productive editors here to build an encyclipedia. You seem to know far more about things like barnstars and retired templates than the average new editor with 40 edits. Do you think that you are dealing with people who just fell off a turnip truck? Yes, I have the rollback right, but I use it cautiously and sparingly. Come clean. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Truth, please be aware that activism is not welcome on Wikipedia: See WP:SOAPBOX. Writing neutrally about activism is a different matter, of course. --ColinFine (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I considered the edits that were uncontested until this unofficial sockpuppet to be activism because they increased understanding of a controversial set of subjects, but I guess activism can be bad as well, safety can become a bad word too it can be seen as tyranny. This is turning into a matter of semantics though.

Flyer very rudely started babbling about sex dolls and bonobos at me before undoing all my work for the last week I've been here, which is a unique way of introducing yourself. I wouldn't soapbox because there's no references involved, it's as simple as that. I would like to think I'm good at arguing, even if I hate doing it because I'd rather be learning more things and sharing them.

I'm not about to edit war either but I'd like my edits back eventually. Shouldn't the checkuser thing take all of 5 minutes? If the IP addresses change periodically or are shared between multiple people than how is that information even conclusive one way or the other? I wish the page for Wikipedia:CheckUser included information on the time frame. I see "Checkusers are permitted but not required to inform an editor that their account has been checked", nothing on turnaround time though. I don't mind waiting. An Inconvenient Truth (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be obsessed with checkuser. Although a positive checkuser pretty well proves an editor is a sock, a negative checkuser proves nothing, for a sock could just use another computer. —teb728 t c 22:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Article rejected because does not show subject's notability?

User:Guengaea/Diana Dean (artist)

Dear All,

I am a PhD historian and just wrote my first wikipedia article which has been rejected because I apparently did not sufficiently show the subject's notability. I am trying to construct a page about one of Canada's most notable woman painters, who is "on the radar of the National Gallery," but in the article I only cited one source. I have seen so very many articles with no academic references whatsoever so I am confused about this process. Should I simply add more academic references, more images, or is there something more to be done? Can I get feedback on how to resolve this? Guengaea (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Guengaea, and welcome to the Teahouse. Notability can be summarized as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". This translates to many books, academic articles, newspaper stories, documentary films etc. on the topic that cover it in depth and where the subject has not been involved in making these sources. An interview obviously fails the last criterion as does the artist's website.

In theory notability is a property of the topic (and not your article) and there is nothing you can do about it; it's about what other people before you have written about the topic. In practice, however, when you submit an article for review, the reviewer appreciates if you cite as much quality sources as possible. This makes both notability clear and produces good writing, because everything you write must be based on these published reliable sources. That other articles may fail something, that "other stuff exists" is never a good argument. Articles should be judged against our guidelines, not against one another (we are not involved in a race to the bottom, after all).

In short, yes, please add more and varied references to reliable sources that back up what you have written in the article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to expand a bit, the notability guideline works hand in glove with the verifiability policy (though all of our core content policies redound to use of sources). Notability requires that the topic be the subject of substantive publication in reliable, secondary, independent sources, whereas, verifiability requires that all of the content be verifiable in reliable (though not necessarily independent and secondary) sources. Even though that standard only requires the corroborating source to exist, rather than be actually demonstrated by citation, excellent articles (see Wikipedia:Featured articles) thus cite sources for every statement of fact in them. So, if you take that path—find and cite sources for all of the factual content—and do so using the types of sources needed to demonstrate notability, it takes care of everything. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Guengaea: I agree completely with the first two replies and want to add my own perspective: Citing high quality reliable, independent sources is golden when writing a Wikipedia article. An article should summarize those sources and should include no assertions that are not supported by those sources. Although it is not be necessary that sources be online, including easily verifiable online sources adds to the credibility of a draft, since that makes it far easier for a reviewer (or a reader) to verify the accuracy of a draft. Here is a specific example: You wrote that her work is in the McMichael Canadian Art Collection. I went to the website of that art gallery and used its search tool to find out about that holding, and found nothing. We definitely need a reliable source verifying that assertion, and there is no such reference in the draft now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

on declining Draft: Diana Fosha due to references

Hello Teahouse, I am writing here because Robert McClenon, who reviewed the draft for submission, requests that questions regarding a decline be brought to the teahouse. The submission was declined because "too many of the references are associated with Fosha, her organization, or her school of therapy." However, out of 11 references, 7 are independent of AEDP affiliation with organization, Fosha, and school of therapy. References are either from reviews of the work and practice from people outside of AEDP or are interviewers from organizations with no affiliation with AEDP. Thank you in advance for a new look at the references. Carrieruggieri concerning Draft: Diana Fosha Carrieruggieri (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I see 11 citations in the draft. 1 & 6 I do not have access to; for all I know they may provide evidence that Fosha is notable. 2 and 8 are written by Fosha. 3 & 5 are about interviews with her. 4 is the web site of her employer. 7, 9 & 10 are blurbs for her books, presumably written by her publishers. 11 contains no discussion of her. So the list includes at most two independent sources with significant discussion of her. Maproom (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Carrieruggieri This post to the Help desk seem to suggest that Diana Fosha also wrote reference #1. If so, that is one less possibly independent source.

By the way, I notice that all your over 400 contributions seem to concern Diana Fosha and her AEDP. If I am right in guessing that you are a paid editor, please see Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. —teb728 t c 22:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Carrieruggieri: My suggestion is that you start by removing every reference written by Fosha or affiliated with her in any way, or interviews of her. None of those are the kind of sources that establish notability on Wikipedia. Instead, add completely independent, reliable sources that discuss her and her work in detail. Now, summarize what those sources say about Fosha. Can you write an informative biography based on those independent, reliable sources? If so, then she is notable. If not, then she isn't.

If her academic work has been published in peer reviewed psychology journals and widely cited by other scholars, then perhaps she may meet our notability guideline for academics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Edits to SRM University

Hi, I was looking at the history of the article SRM University and noticed these edits. They seem not to be constructive and have are written in pretty poor English. Should they be reverted? Thanks. NikolaiHo^☎️ 19:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nikolaiho: Welcome to the Teahouse. Per the guideline on English variations which can be found at the shortcut WP:ENGVAR, articles about Indian topics such as this should be written in Indian English. Accordingly, any copy editing of the article should be done by an editor who is conversant in Indian English. If the content is unreferenced, please look for references or tag it as needing references. If it is clearly unencyclopedic, then remove it explaining why in an edit summary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

How to do a MAJOR edit on Percentiles?

I would like to do a MAJOR edit of the Wiki article on Percentiles, as I have described in "Radical Re-Write Suggestion" on its talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Percentile -- however, it appears likely to me that this will be reverted, unless there is prior discussion and consensus building. I though putting the suggestion on the talk page might lead to this outcome, but it did not do so. So what should I do to get the required discussion on the suggested re-write? Asaduzaman (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Asaduzaman, and welcome to the Teahouse. This sometimes happens with pages that not many people are actively watching. You can try dropping a note at the talk page of the relevant WikiProject, here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics. If still unsuccessful, you can initiate a Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but please note that this is a very formal process and following instructions is appreciated. Whatever method of attracting more attention you chose, you could perhaps write a sample of re-written material (like a suggested lead section or a sample "Definitions" section). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the reference to which you refer is not available online will reduce the number of contributors who will readily be able to respond to your suggestion. Please also reduce your use of capitals; over-use of capitals is regarded as SHOUTING. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The article is freely available -- the link is here: http://ww2.amstat.org/publications/jse/v14n3/langford.html HOWEVER, I could not figure out how to put this link into the references of the article like the others. Asaduzaman (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Asaduzaman: for how to add references, see Help:Referencing for beginners – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Titles and Searches

I recently added a page but when I search Wikipedia the page does not show up. Does the Wikipedia search algorithm use the user name e.g. RNLIsouthport for a search result or does it use content? RNLI Southport (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rnlisouthport and welcome. I think what has happened is you created what you meant to be an article at your userpage. If you will confirm that you meant what is at User:Rnlisouthport to be an article, I'll move it to article space. LadyofShalott 15:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Better moved to draft space. There may well be an article about the history of lifeboats based in Southport and the loss of the Mexico is covered in Southport and St Anne's lifeboats disaster. But as it stands this article is as much about the fund raising activities of a local group and is entirely unreferenced and would be lucky to survive AFD at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nthep (talk • contribs) 15:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding webpage topic

Can i create a page on one of the Chemistry professor who has been tutor to many students at Vinoba Bhave university a university in Indian state of Jharkhand Avinavgautam (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

See academic notability guidelines. What you say isn't sufficient to satisfy academic notability guidelines. Does he have a named chair, or have his published papers been widely cited? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Avinavgautam. It sets out some recommendations that are relevant if you do go ahead and create the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Adjusting a redirect

Hi, There is an occurance that keeps directing to another page, seems like a link is wrongly inserted somewhere, I have no idea how to correct it. When I type in the search box 'Mid-Anglia Constabulary' the results point to Cambridgeshire Constabulary. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mid-Anglia_Constabulary&redirect=no This is wrong as the two constabularies are both completely separate. I would like to make Mid-Anglia Constabulary a separate page on its own. How do you break this link? (Sorry, this was hard to explain)

Swainys-Boy (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Swainys-Boy: if you now want to write about the Mid-Anglia force in it's own write then edit the page and remove the current markup that says #redirect [[Cambridgeshire Constabulary]] as that is the code that redirects the page and while it remains the page will redirect regardless of whatever else you add. Nthep (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Ahh! gotcha, that sounds too simple, will give it a try, thank you very much for the help. Swainys-Boy (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Nthep's advice is technically correct, Swainys-Boy; but if you are going to write what is effectively a new article there, I would advise you instead to use the Article wizard and create the new article in draft space, and let the accepting reviewer sort out the disambiguation when they eventually move your draft to main article space. This is because if you do as Nthep suggests, and start editing the dab page into a new article, it will immediately become subject to all the criteria for an article, and liable to deletion if it falls short. --ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine, this probably looks a safer way to go. I have already found out just how quickly a page can be deleted, to my very newbie annoyance. lol Swainys-Boy (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

NPOV violation on Social Science Citation Index?

Brief description of the Social Science Citation Index cites publication by Klein and Chang which identifies a bias against free market oriented research, as well as other defects. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Sciences_Citation_Index&oldid=prev&diff=709308617 This is the ONLY source which makes such a claim -- furthermore, the article is published in a journal edited by Klein which openly proclaims a strong free market orientation as its ideological under-pinning. My edit (which was rather clumsy) was reverted by the free marketeers who have created this entry. Asaduzaman (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Asaduzaman: Welcome to the Teahouse. The content which you added and which was reverted was:

"IMPORTANT NOTE ON PREVIOUS CRITICISM: Daniel Klein is the editor of the journal in which this research was published. The journal EJW itself has an openly avowed strong free market ideological bias. Thus the results of the survey are not surprising."

First of all, we do not include "important notes" in Wikipedia articles as this is editorializing, and editorializing is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. We never make comments in articles in capital letters, because this is equivalent to shouting. Also, your addition was not referenced to a reliable source, which is required. Accordingly, there were at least three good reasons to revert your addition to that article. In addition, your description of the other editors as "free marketeers" as if that is a negative thing is also not appropriate. People of all reasonable ideologies from left to right are welcome to edit Wikipedia as long as they avoid disruption and hate speech, and comply with our policies and guidelines.

So, go look for reliable sources that refute Klein's view of the index, or general sources that evaluate the usefulness of the index, and summarize those views, adding references to those sources. Referencing for beginners explains how to format references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement that my edit was clumsy -- I said so in my post. I am not arguing against the revert -- I have no problems with that.

Also, I was under the impression that right wing, left wing, free marketeer, socialist, communist were all descriptive terms, not value judgements, but I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong.

My problem is that the section entitled CRITICISM does not satisfy the Wikipedia criteria for NPOV and this section itself should be deleted. My comment on it was a clumsy attempt to balance the obvious bias by pointing out the source of the citation. What is written in the section is available from only one source which is obviously a biased source, and cannot be confirmed or supported anywhere else. Asaduzaman (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Asaduzaman: You are correct that neutral descriptors of a person's ideology are appropriate. I interpreted your description of the ideology of these editors as pejorative. If I was wrong and you had no such intent, then I apologize.

How do other editors know that "the section is available from only one source which is obviously a biased source, and cannot be confirmed or supported anywhere else" is true? Let me start by saying that I accept the possibility that your assertion is completely correct. But so far, you have furnished no evidence that your assertion is true. How do I know that what you say is true unless you cite a reliable source? That is how we roll on Wikipedia - we either cite reliable sources or we say nothing. I linked above to a very useful essay explaining how to cite reliable sources. So, if you want anyone to take your argument seriously, then please cite reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I wish to add a film credit to Robin Williams' Wiki page.

I'm new to the WIki ... but I frequently use it for reviewing a long list of topics because it is so stocked full of information!

The movie in question is: "The Final Cut" (2004). I know that the filmography list is only partial, but I feel it should be listed because of his profound portrayal of the character. The page is protected, and I have made entries in regards to my request to add the film credit. Any information you can give would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! >"<. Lady Jkattz (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Lady Jkattz: Welcome to the Teahouse. As you probably know, Robin Williams was a prolific actor with roles in at least 106 films. The biography of such an actor will not list every film role, but only the most famous and iconic roles. Instead, we have a spin-off article, Robin Williams filmography, which lists all of his roles, and The Final Cut is in that article. You need to make the case that this role was highly reviewed, or award winning, or a major box office success, to such an extent that it should be listed in the main biography. Based on our article about the film, this does not seem to be the case. But I have not seen that film and therefore have no personal opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

In addition, please be aware that the proper place to propose such a change to the article is Talk:Robin Williams, and I do not see that you have made any edits there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Lady Jkattz suggested it last month at Talk:Robin Williams/Archive 8#Missing Film Credit. There were no replies but it was probably seen by users who didn't think it should be added. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft too basic?

Hi, I created this draft about a minor 1933 sport event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rugby_at_the_1933_International_University_Games but I've been invited to the Teahouse, probably because the draft is too basic or anyway not satisfying the wikipedia criteria. May I know how to correct it? I'm not going to be a prolific poster on wikipedia, I've simply found some old rugby scores and seen that the relative page on wikipedia was blank, so I had the desire to fill itBallabenovic (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Ballabenovic - You were invited to the Teahouse because every new editor is invited to the Teahouse. However, I will comment that your draft needs at least one more reliable source. Welcome to Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert McClenonBallabenovic (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Can I create a page about my blog?

I own a blog that writes about politics. It doesn't currently generate any revenue but it may do in future. Am I allowed to create a Wikipedia page for my blog? If I do what would I need to do regarding conflict of interest? I looked on the COI page but I didn't understand it. Theonereece (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Theonereece - Basically, probably no. Your blog is probably not notable. Has your blog been commented on by in-depth by multiple indepdent reliable sources? If not, your blog probably is not notable. Thank you for asking about conflict of interest; it probably isn't important unless your blog is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, thank you Robert. I agree that by those standards my blog is not notable. If at any point it does become notable, could I create an article about it or would that be a conflict of interest. Sorry if this reply goes in the wrong place, I have no idea what I'm doing.Theonereece (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It would be a conflict of interest, although that doesn't technically prevent you from creating an article. Doing so would be discouraged, though. You would be required to declare your COI and it would be best to create the article as a draft for review, via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Another option would be to list it at Wikipedia: Requested articles, for someone else to write. But, as Robert says, the blog needs to be notable first in any case. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it wrong to add belated block notices to blocked users' talk pages if you're not the blocking administrator?

Sro23 was reverting an edit I made that added a block notice to a blocked user's talk page, saying that "If the blocking administrator wanted this here, they would have already done so.". I do not know any policies, guidelines or essays that tell us that we shouldn't add block notices to long-blocked users' talk page if we weren't the admins who blocked them and a block notice wasn't added already, the closest thing I know to it is wp:DTTR, and I can't seem infer what I can or can't do based on that no templating regulars rule, maybe it's just best to ignore that rule. And even though I don't really agree with Sro23's philosophy, I'd like to know about policies/guidelines that support/defend/justify Sro23's idea. --UnforgivablyPotatoes (talk) 11:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@UnforgivablyPotatoes: admins "must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked" WP:EXPLAINBLOCK but this does not necessarily have to be by way of a message on their talk page. The block log entry which will show if you look at a user's contributions page will suffice to meet WP:EXPLAINBLOCK if it is clear enough. There have been previous discussions about whether a talk page message (TPM) should be obligatory (example Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 22#Transparency) but the consensus is that a TPM is not always necessary. One of reasons for not using a TPM is WP:DENY because there are people who get their kick out of seeing their name in lights. My advice would be to ask the blocking admin if the absence of a TPM was an oversight or deliberate. Nthep (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

A few basic questions regarding my first article

Hi,

I am new to Wikipedia, and I got some feedback on my first article about the Ezra Jack Keats Book Award. I posted some questions about that feedback in the “Talk” tab of the article, but I am not sure that was the right place, so I am going to try here instead.

For the issue "contains content that is written like an advertisement", I really don't know which part this is referring to. Could you please let me know? (Note that I am not connected personally to the topic of the article, so there is no conflict of interest there.)
For the "lists that would be better expressed as prose", do you mean the lists of Award Winners? How would that look like though? A list seemed like a pretty effective way of mentioning the winners. Could you perhaps give me an example?
For the lack of links to the article, that seems to have resolved automatically, once I added a couple of relevant links myself (yay!).
Any other hints would be really helpful (e.g., on the copy editing part, I did the best I could there).

I know these are very basic questions, so thank you so much for your patience!

Reinetteapi (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Reinetteapi: Welcome to the Teahouse. Another editor edited the article and resolved the issues. I removed the template and made some minor changes. All is now well with the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much User:Cullen328 and User:Theroadislong, that was really helpful. I understand the logic of the latest changes you made, and I am so glad the article is ok now! Reinetteapi (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to have the date included on the Unsigned template?

Unsigned comments signed by User:SineBot have dates attached to them. However, when I use the template {-{subst:unsignedip|x.x.x.x}}, there's no date. Is there any way to rectify this? Verified Cactus (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@VerifiedCactus: yes just add the second parameter so you add {{subst:Unsigned IP|x.x.x.x|time and date (UTC)}} instead. Time and date is, in the format hh:mm, dd month year and you must include the (UTC) though for it not to mess up bot archiving. Nthep (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

To find out the time and date, visit the page history. You can copy and paste the time (page histories display it in the format defined by Nthep above). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged. Verified Cactus (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You presumably haven't looked at Template:Unsigned (or Template:Unsigned IP) to see what the parameters are? However, I find that Template:xsign is easier to use. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

How Long before article is on Wikipedia or Rejected?

Hi! I submitted an article on the author, activist Richard Oppenlander back on September 28th, and haven't heard anything. I am new to this all, isn't normal to take so long? I did a small thing on Michal Siewierski that came back after a couple weeks because he wasn't well known enough, but still nothing on the longer article...Pepspotbib (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is normal that it takes several weeks for a review. There are currently 1,272 submissions waiting to be reviewed, so you just need to be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pepspotbib: Welcome to the Teahouse. I took a look at Draft: Richard A. Oppenlander and in my opinion, it is unlikely to be approved. A Wikipedia article should summarize significant coverage in independent, reliable souces about Oppenlander . Your sources are not independent. They are to Oppenlander's book, speeches videos and so on. There are two non-notable book awards mentioned, which do not confer notability. Please read our notability guideline for authors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

How do I archive a talk page?

Also, what are the parameters for archiving a talk page? Verified Cactus (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Assuming you mean having it archived by a bot rather than manually, see User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo for the code and parameters you need to decided upon. Nthep (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

What is 'Associated acts'?

I just want to ask what is the term 'associated acts' (of solo artist, bands, etc.) in reference to Wikipedia. Thanks! ~Manila's Poging Juan 22:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, PogingJuan, and welcome to the Teahouse. I believe the information you are looking for is here: Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

How do I get the cover of a book into the infobox?

Resolved

Same as the summary of the question.

~Kc229023:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kc2290 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Kc2290 and welcome to the Teahouse. Go to Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard and upload a picture of the cover, be sure you understand all questions in the wizard and answer them correctly. When finished, copy the name of the file you had just uploaded. Go to the article in which you want to use it and click Edit source. In the Infobox book, add the following fields:

| image =

| image_size =

| alt =

| caption =

Paste the name of the file in the field "image". The rest of the fields are optional and explained here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Or, that is how one would normally do it. However, since you are a very new user and are not autoconfirmed yet, you cannot upload files. I'm assuming this is about The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Deconstructed and I can offer to upload the cover. You can use the above instructions in the future if you want to work on further book articles. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Article declined - notability clarification

Hello,

I thank the reviewer for taking the time to review my submission for Twin City Stage, which was declined for notability reasons. I get it. I do. Is this institution nationally notable? No. Is it regionally notable? In my opinion, yes, certainly. I believe, in my opinion I've cited enough sources to demonstrate that.

I guess I'm a bit confused because once I began my Wikipedia editing for this article, I realized that national notability might be an issue. Consequently, I asked in the teahouse about regional notability and seemed to get the message from editors that regional notability was acceptable. (Otherwise, I would not have gone to trouble of gathering the information)

I also see plenty of articles from similar organizations that don't have not any national notability. So, I'm confused. I might be able to find some sources that elevate notability a bit, but I doubt I will find enough to elevate it to national notability. I guess the long and short of it is, I'm asking if regional credibility is enough? If so, please inform him how to better demonstrate that. Or if national notability is required then I suppose I had best not waste any more energy on this effort.

There is a citation to a national award given to community theatres, not sure if that was observed by the reviewer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Twin_City_Stage Philip.mark.powell (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Philip.mark.powell: Welcome to the Teahouse. We do not really distinguish between "national notability" and "regional notability" although a topic of local interest is more likely to be judged notable if it has received significant coverage in non-local sources. In this particular case, the theatre company is located in Winston-Salem, the fifth largest city in North Carolina. References to media coverage in the larger cities in the state would help, or in adjoining states. The theatre company is over 80 years old, which is a plausible claim of notability, I suppose. Have any books about the history of community theater discussed this company? You may find some useful thoughts in an essay called Wikipedia:Places of local interest. This is not "official policy" but does describe the thinking of many experienced editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Philip.mark.powell: on Wikipedia, "notability" has a different meaning than it has in everyday language. Here, when we say "notability" we really mean "criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia". The criteria is usual interpreted as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic." You said you might find such sources, and by all means, please add new information to the draft based on those sources. This is probably your best bet at demonstrating notability (i.e. that the draft meets our inclusion criteria). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Philip.mark.powell: Regarding notability of organizations there is consideration of the audience a source reaches. See WP:AUD. Gab4gab (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Caroline Guthrie - Article Rejected

Please can someone help me preferably by email, as to why my article for Caroline Guthrie is being rejected. There seems to be a problem but no-one is telling me what it is. If I knew what I'm doing wrong I could fix it but alas it doesnt seem to be that easy. Help needed. Thank you Gabe Gabe Cooney 11:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabecooney (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You need to read what it says in the box at the top of Draft:Caroline Guthrie (born 10 August 1961) is a Scottish actress. She starred as Carol in the 1981 film Gregory's Girl, Pauline in Local Hero and Katy in Chaplin., and the links from there (the wikilinks are shown in blue). You will also find a message (and links) on your user talk page, at User talk:Gabecooney#Your submission at Articles for creation: Caroline Guthrie (born 10 August 1961) is a Scottish actress. She starred as Carol in the 1981 film Gregory's Girl, Pauline in Local Hero and Katy in Chaplin. (October 24). --David Biddulph (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You were also sent a Welcome message on your user talk page in 2014, at User talk:Gabecooney#Welcome!. It included a number of useful links, including to WP:Your first article and to a tutorial. You ought to read those links. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Gabecooney:. Sorry it seemed like nobody would explain what is wrong; that is not our intention. Please do take the time to read the instructions that David Biddulph mentions above. As well, the notice on the top of your article gives the name of the reviewer. A couple of things that stand out immediately are: the article's title should just be "Draft:Caroline Guthrie", not a whole paragraph; and every article needs references to reliable, independent sources (this is even more vital for biographies of living people), but this article has no references at all. I understand that the idea of references is difficult for a subject you are close to personally, but they are not negotiable in an encyclopedia. I added one reference as an example that you can use as a model, and cleaned up some of the formatting a bit, but I think your first task before the article can even be considered will be to find enough references to show that the subject is notable (in Wikipedia's particular meaning). Find all those press articles about her, mentions in books, awards she has won, etc, then build the article around them.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

How do I find images that I can use?

I can't find any relevant images to put on pages which I edit. That is, when I search Wikimedia Commons, I can't find anything relevant, and when I try and upload an image I found on the Web, I am prohibited from doing so because I don't own the image. How do so many images get on Wikipedia if it is this way? Is it indeed possible to use images from a web search for Wikipedia? Or do I have to hunt down an image in a library or something other source to add to a page?

Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Icebob99, and welcome to the Teahouse. Suitable images find their way to Wikimedia Commons in two ways. In the first instance, the uploader has created the image themselves and by uploading it to Commons they agree to release it under a free license. Many people own cameras (or smartphones with cameras) and take pictures and upload them to Commons.

The other way is if someone else than the uploader has previously published an image somewhere else. As you note, not any image you find on the web is okay to upload. The images need to be under a suitable free license, or be out of copyright altogether. It takes some skill and experience to discern if an image you find meets these conditions. There are a few rules of thumb though. Very old images (specifically those that have been published before the year 1923) are always out of copyright. With new images, you should be looking for notices on the web pages that explicitly say that anyone can use the image for any purpose, including commercially. This is often stated by saying that the image is licensed by some of the well-known free licenses that Commons accepts (see Well-known licenses). There are some means to find such images. One such place is Flickr where some (but not all!) images are okay to upload because they meet the conditions I've just described (see Flickr files).

Whatever you do, you need to familiarize yourself with the basic principles here: Wikimedia Commons: Licensing. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I can say it a little more simply. Yes, you're right; @Icebob99: it's difficult. Most pictures on the Web belong to someone, and most owners can't be found, and most owners who are found don't want to release their copyright. I have given up on that method. There are also millions of Public Domain pictures on the Web, but finding relevant ones is also usually difficult.

I have put thousands of pictures into articles. Mostly I got them the easy way, which is to snap those pictures with my own camera. See Wikipedia:Photograph your hometown which mostly I wrote. Other pictures, I found in Commons. Commons searching is mostly by two methods. First is by text search. This sometimes gets the right picture. Usually no, but it gets me a dozen pictures that are not right for my purpose but are somewhat related. From those near misses I use the second method, the tree of WP:Categorys to get to the categories that have actual, relevant pictures. This process usually takes a big part of an hour. After that, I generally give up, and try to illustrate something else. As I say, it isn't easy, so most days I spend more time in Commons than in Wikipedia. It's pleasant when it works. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Adding to the answers above: There are over 34 million media files on Wikimedia Commons, most of which are photos. If you develop your search skills, you can often find what you need there. Another source of free images are the millions of photos taken by by employees of the United States federal government while on the payroll. Those images are free of copyright and eligible for upload to Wikimedia Commons. Other government agencies may (or may not) have a similar policy. You need to check.

I agree with Jim.henderson that taking photos yourself is a great way to add images to Wikipedia articles. For example, if I visit a museum that allows photography, I will take photos of various exhibits that I find interesting. When I return home, I review the relevant Wikipedia articles. If the article is well illustrated, I move on. If the article is poorly illustrated, I upload my photos using the easy-to-use Android app for Wikipedia Commons, and then add those photos to the appropriate article. You have to be careful to ensure that the item you are photographing is not copyrighted itself. For example, a photo of a 19th century sculpture is fine, but a photo of a 21st century sculpture is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons since it is a photo of a copyrighted object. It may be allowed on Wikipedia but only in one article in the context of referenced critical commentary about that sculpture. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed answers everyone! I appreciate it. Icebob99 (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)