Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 634

This is an archive of past discussions on 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 630

←

Archive 632

→

Can someone help improve a table at sefirot?

There is a table at [1] with a note beneath it asking for it to be corrected. I was not quite successful in making it as it should be... You don't need any prior knowledge of Kabbalah to do it, just how to make a table on wikipedia ;-) 238-Gdn (talk) 08:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi 238-Gdn, welcome to the Teahouse. Does [2] look OK? I used style="vertical-align: top;" at Help:Table#Vertical alignment in cells. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to Primehunter for immediately stepping in to make the necessary correction! 238-Gdn (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I have restored PrimeHunter's reply here, 238-Gdn. I presume you removed it by accident. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Wasn't aware I had done that. 238-Gdn (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries, 238-Gdn. Your edit was made shortly after Primehunter's, so it probably happened due to an edit conflict (see Help:Edit conflict). Cordless Larry (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles

Please i need someone to assist me with an article for my mentor, all details regarding his biography is with me thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibabanaija (talk • contribs) 09:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ibabanaija: The person you are writing about must be a notable person, as Wikipedia defines notability, before an article about them will be accepted. If they are currently alive, then there is a specific policy for biographies of living persons that you must follow.

You must show that this person has had significant coverage by providing references to multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This person's own website and/or social media sites will not be enough to establish their notability.

If you know this individual personally, then you have what is called a conflict of interest. We discourage editors from writing about people or things with whom they have a personal or professional relationship. You can find out why in Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

Finally, there is a problem with your username. You should not use an account whose name is the real name of another person. Wikipedia will often block these accounts to prevent damaging impersonation. I would advise you to change your username to something else. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

How does a wikipedia user get barnstars?Vinnylospo (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vinnylospo. Wikipedia:Barnstars are given by other users on their own initiative. You cannot apply for it or do specific tasks which are awarded with a barnstar. You can just make a lot of constructive edits and hope somebody notices. Some types of edits may be more likely to produce a barnstar but I don't know which. I mostly get barnstars for helping other users but that's also my most active area with around 20,000 edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vinnylospo: There is one type of award that you can give yourself, called a service award. These are based simply on the number of edits you have made and the length of time you have been registered on Wikipedia. Based on your current edit count and length of registration, you would qualified to display a Novice Editor award. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

how can I prevent wikipedia from vandalism with the help of twinkle

Hello, I'm new to wikipedia, I would like to be a best wikipedia editor. Here I need help to use twinkle to prevent wikipedia from unconstructive edits.

Thanks In Advance :-)

Best Regards Harsh Pinjani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harsh Pinjani India (talk • contribs) 08:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Harsh Pinjani India, welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:Twinkle and Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc, and come back if you have a more specific question. I see you have never edited an article. It may be good to learn more about Wikipedia before using a tool like Twinkle. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: This editor is making high-speed reverts of IP edits without explanation, sometimes reverting good edits (such as this). I thought it was a bot run amok before reading their posts on the Teahouse. Not sure where else to report this... Funcrunch (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I have warned the user and reverted their edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of User:Abrish211. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Is humour allowed?

I know what you're thinking: Of course it is! There are several articles with jokes. So when I wanted to put some humour in such a boring site, I went to the Central African Republic section of the Country Etymology page and made it read "Do you really need to find out?" I mean, seriously! CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC. It's pretty much self explanatory. BUT NO!!! My work was DELETED and replaced with the original junk! But I thought it didn't show up because it didn't work, so I tried again. STILL it wasn't there! So the next day, I found a message. It turned out I was BLOCKED for vandalism. VANDALISM!!! It was HUMOUR, OK?!! Ever hard of something called CONSISTENCY???

That Random Edmontonian (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, That Random Edmontonian. This is a project to build a reference work, specifically an encyclopedia. Please take that seriously. No, we do not include jokes in encyclopedia articles, unless the article is about humor and the joke illustrates a legitimate point. So, stop that inappropriate behavior, or you are at risk of being blocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, THAT incident was LONG ago. That Random Edmontonian (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this up? As explained, you made a mistake. Happens. The block was appropriate, but is no longer in place. So why are you revisiting it? If you would like to contribute responsibly, go for it.--S Philbrick (Talk) 01:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That was my...old account...don't ask. Long and embarrassing story. That Random Edmontonian (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

To clarify what Cullen said, Wikipedia hosts , but they all have one thing in common: they aren't in the main namespace. The main namespace is the one with all the articles. Since it's the one that most people see, it's held to higher standards.

Your joke might have worked better if you'd told it somewhere else. Player 03 (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

How to add a draft?

Good morning, I clicked on Teahouse "Ask a Question" and I assume this is where I ask a question.

I’m trying (unsuccessfully) to add 8 more (of 11 rail trail descriptions) into Wikipedia. Each town that the New Haven and Northampton Canal Greenway travels through has their own advocacy group dedicated to maintain their greenway. I’m trying to add each rail trail name into Wikipedia. So far I've added the New Haven Vision Trail, Southington Rails-to-Trails and the Plainville Bicycle Travelway.

When complete, I then plan on linking each rail trail description to the New Haven and Northampton Canal Greenway (yet to be included in Wikipedia). I cannot find the link to create a new draft. I do have a complete description of the 8 yet to be included.

Thank you, Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.237.9 (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bob. Please see the Wikipedia:Article wizard. As a gut check: are you certain this subject is independently notable and that you will be able to demonstrate that in a draft by citations to published, reliable, secondary and independent sources that write about this topic in substantive detail? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Seeking advice for a page which lists fundraising days

Hi,

I'm looking for formatting advice about a page I've drafted in my userspace: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SunnyBoi/Wear_it_Purple_Days

I'm making the page because there are multiple charity fundraising days which focus on wearing the colour purple, and it can be quite confusing. I know it's very drafty at the moment, cos I first started it just for me, but I'm wondering if it might be more broadly useful. I'm not sure about the best way to format it?

Some of the specific purple days were held as one-off events, whereas others are annual. Would you suggest a tabular format similar to this one (on a different subject) which someone else compiled? I could maybe do two separate lists within the one page, to show one-off and regular purple days? I could organise in "year held" order too.

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

Thank you for your advice! SunnyBoi (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, SunnyBoi. My advice is, before worrying about how to present it, concentrate on getting the solid substantial independent sources without which no information should appear in Wikipedia. On your draft, you have a number of references; but it looks to me as if most or all of them are articles in local papers announcing an event. (I haven't gone looking for the ones that you haven't given a link for, but I doubt if they are any more than that). I'm afraid that these are of no value for establishing that a subject is notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) because they are generally based on press releases from the event, or else are no more than a listing. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything which a subject - be it a person, a group, an organisation, or an event - says or wants to say about itself. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about it. My suspicion is that few of the Wear it Purple days are individually notable. The movement as a whole may be, but only if you can find enough independent published material about it to base an article on (I see that we have an article on the Australian version, Wear it Purple Day). If so, it might then be appropriate to list individual ones with only the level of sourcing that you have - but unless there is other substantial content, then I don't think such a list would be appropriate for the article. Note that in List of LGBT awareness days that you reference, the majority of the entries are blue links, i.e. we have separate articles about them. --ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of list in epilepsy Purple Day page

Hello,

I've made some edits to the Purple Day page, which was flagged as having a lot of promotional content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Day

It looks like there haven't been other edits in quite some time. Would you recommend asking this question (below) on the talk page for the actual page? Or is it okay to seek guidance here?

I would like to propose removing the bullet point list of celebrities under this existing heading: "Other celebrities who attended the event include..."

This is because while celebrity support for causes is helpful, it doesn't seem super notable in this case? But I'm concerned that this might be viewed as unhelpful editing.

Thank you very much for your guidance! I'm happy to put this on the talk page if that's your recommendation. (thank you Colin! the link to the BRD page is really helpful) SunnyBoi (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, SunnyBoi. I agree that the list of celebrities is not appropriate - the article is about the continuing day, and while some mention of the international launch is appropriate (according to what independent reliable sources say - blogs are hardly ever considered reliable sources, and Robin Slick was connected to the event) a list of celebrities in lead section is certainly de trop. As for removing it - please have a look at WP:BRD. As long as you make an edit in good faith (and I strongly advise you to put something in the edit summary to say why you think this is a good edit) nobody should take it as disruptive. If somebody disagrees, they might revert you, and then you can have a discussion on the talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Please help

How can I create a page and appears on Google — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyonnebuka (talk • contribs) 14:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Lyonnebuka and welcome to the Teahouse. My first answer is that we are here to create an encyclopaedia, not to publicise or promote anything, and therefore (in my personal view) it doesn't matter whether it gets indexed on Google or not. Having said that, if you write an acceptable encyclopaedia article in Wikipedia, it will in time get indexed by Google. I urge you to read the links that C.Fred has put on your user talk page, especially your first article. Writing an article that gets accepted is quite difficult, and few people manage it without first acquiring some familiarity with editing Wikipedia. One more point: writing about yourself is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Writing and linking articles on the same subject in different languages?

Hi there. I am composing an article about a well-known artist who passed away 20 years ago and has no Wikipedia presence. I am writing it in English and I wil also write it in another three or four languages after that, so the language links to each language article can be seen at the left under "Languages". How do I publish the other articles in each language and how do i link them? Thanks! WPWorksWPWorks (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, WPWorks. I'm afraid we can't tell you much about publishing in other languages, because each language Wikipedia is an independent project with its own rules and procedures: you would have to ask on each of then. There might be some generally useful information in WP:translate us, but I'm not sure. To link the articles together when you've created them, you edit the Wikidata entry: pick "Edit links" under the list of languages.

Some advice on your draft: in my personal view, if you have written text and not cited a source for the information in that text, you have already gone astray. Wikipedia is not interested in what you or I know, it is only interested in what reliable published sources say. --ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input ColinFine. Obviously the most important part is your advice about citing sources. There are books published about the artist that can be referenced, as well as catalogs from Town Hall-sponsored exhibitions and events, but all have been published in Forli, and Bologna Italy and carry no ISBN. Could I reference each publication mentioning publisher, author and copyright year? Would that be enough? I am also in contact with the Assessor of Culture of the Town Hall Administration of Forli and could collect further proof of sourcing. Also there are articles by l;ocal newspapers published at their media websites; would such links be considered sources? The artist is unknown beyond her native region and therefore the Wikipedia entry I am attempting to create would be among the first efforts to get the artist known beyond that region of Italy. How uphill a project would you say I am facing? WPWorks (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, WPWorks. Absolutely you can cite books as long as they have been published by reputable publishers (not vanity presses). They don't have to be available online, or in English, as long as an interested reader could in principle get hold of them, eg through a major library. You need to give enough bibliographic information to make this possible, and also to help a reader judge whether a source looks to be reliable. Please see referencing for beginners.

Having said that, if she is unknown beyond her native region, it is possible that she would not meet the standards for notability - it all depends on the quality and reliability of the sources. What we are interesed in is writing about her by people unconnected with her - so not catalogues, or interviews, and probably not anything put out by a gallery who exhibits her. (Those sources may be used for uncontroversial factual data such as places and dates, but they do nothing to establish notabillity). WP:Golden rule may clarify for you. --ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello and thank you again ColinFine! Totally understood and truly helpful. Thankfully I did find, today, two books with ISBN at the Italian amazon that I can use as sources. Most of the other books I have that I talked about are published by the town of Forli rather than vanity presses or private concerns (but are difficult to find anywhere but at the Town Hall and Town library). Most of the Exhibitions and Events before and after the artist’s passing were organized by the Town Hall rather than private galleries, another plus. And there is a Park named after her, and there are several sculptures that stand in spots around the town of Forli. It seems to me that she is unknown beyond the region not because of the level of her work or worth, but because of the level of the town’s know-how, or lack of it, or lack of interest, in promoting their own. I am assured by friends in academia back in the States who have seen the work that they believe it to be world class, as I do. Therefore I think it takes someone, at some point, who is not aiming at personal gain, to make such an artist available to a wider public and Wikipedia seems the most appropriate platform? What do you think? By the way, at my sandbox in the artist’s infobox there’s already a link to the website of her work if you are interested. WPWorks (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a "code completion" kind of thing, but for templates?

I'm terrible with titles. So, let me put in other words: In IDEs like Eclipse, you can easily start a method, for example, and after the dot (.), find suggestions to complete the method. What I would want, to give an example, is that when I input, {{nowiki|citeweb}}, more stuff show up as I press, I dunno, Ctrl + Space.

In yet another words, I wonder if there are more powerful editors for Wikipedia. I'm fine with the current way of editing, I'm just curious about more efficient methods. Tetizeraz (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tetizeraz. I must confess I am confused by your post. It may be an issue of jargon. I don't know what "IDEs" stands for, even after looking at IDE. I don't know what you mean by "starting a 'method'"; I don't know which period (.) you are referring to; I'm not sure if by your use of the nowiki tag above (which I have closed; if you use a <nowiki> tag and don't close it with an ending </nowiki> tag [note the forward slash) all of the code after it on this page will not work) you meant for that to display or to use it to make {{citeweb}} into a link, and so forth. Possibly this might help: there are certain tools you can use to automate populating citation templates to an extent. For example, Refill is very useful, as is Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books – see more at See Help:Citation tools. If this is all off target (and no one else comes along who understands your post better; it might just be me) then if you could clarify a bit, that would be great. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It's fine. Thanks for the help, I'll check the links. Tetizeraz (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi - I figure you mean Eclipse (software). I suspect autocomplete in the Wikimedia software would be stymied by the many, many possibilities, even within templates. (The only place I've seen anything like it is in the results that appear below the search box.) But for all I know the Visual Editor does have such a thing. So far as I'm aware, the text editor and the Visual Editor are the only editors (in that sense) that we have. Sorry - I am not known for my technical expertise. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Tetizeraz I am a software developer and I understand exactly what you mean. No there is no such code completion tool for wiki markup in general, nor for templates in particular. For citation templates specifically, I make some use of the RefToolbar, but there are other tools available, listed at Help:Citation tools. Several of these take the form of a popup form in which you fill in data values, and which then builds the citation wiki-code for you. However, anyone used to creating code in Eclipse will not find manually inserting citation templates very taxing.

For others on this thread, including Fuhghettaboutit, much software development is done using Integrated Development Environments or IDEs. In many of these when a user starts to enter a syntax element the environment will offer a choice or list of choices to complete it, based on its programmed knowledge of what choices are available, This is a bit like the search suggestions below the search box. If we had such a thing, after one typed in {{Cite it might offer choices of Web, Book, News Magazine, etc, and after one typed in {{Cite Web it might offer choices of the various parameters available. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, Yngvadottir and DESiegel. Tetizeraz (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Help review for page submission

Hi,

I have submitted a page for review but was declined with the following message from reviewer:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

Could you please help and check on the same and let me know what needs to be done?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Prem_Kumar_Chanda/sandbox

Thank You Prem Kumar Chanda (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Prem Kumar Chanda: you do have footnotes, so I think the reviewer must have meant that they should not be bare links. I've formatted a few of them using the citation templates, so you can see how that is done. I didn't examine the type of references you have, so it's possible I misunderstood what the reviewer meant. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Prem Kumar Chanda , and welcome to the Teahouse. Based on the guideline section that the reviewer (TheSandDoctor) linked to (WP:MINREF), s/he thought you did not use enough footnotes, and in particular that thre were items which require inline citation but did not have them. These items are:

Direct quotations;
Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with {{citation needed}}, or any similar tag)
Any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged.
Contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons.

I didn't notice any such content without an inline citation, myself.

However, TheSandDoctor may have meant the bare links, as Yngvadottir suggested. In any case, providing proper bibliographic detail will improve the draft, and make it easier to use later.

I did notive a few instance of promotional or WP:PEACOCK language, such as original ideas and pioneering analysis, eminent publishers, truly outstanding Indian companies, Over two dozen industry captains and subject experts have appreciated his research through insightful observations., leading Indian dailies, the prestigious programme ‘State of the Economy’, and leading publishers including Sage, Emerald, Taylor and Francis and Palgrave Macmillan. Such statements should be either removed, or attributed to a named person as a direct cited quotation. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

AWB

Hi! Instead of downloading tools like AWB, is there any other such tool available which can be enabled on the account instead which needs no downloads? Thanks. Adityavagarwal (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Adityavagarwal and welcome to the Teahouse. While there are various tools and scripts available on-wiki, I don't know of any that is at all comparable to AWB. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks buddy. So, it would be best to use AWB right? Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

That depends on what you want to do, Adityavagarwal. AWB is a very powerful tool, and should be used with caution. You also need to be authorized to use it. But if you want to do the kinds of things it is good at, I don't know of a better tool. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Notability

Hello! I'm trying to create an article for Darrick E Antell MD FACS, a well known plastic surgeon in the medical field. I believe he deserves to have an article mostly because of his research in twins basically comparing genes and the environment. His work is constantly cited in sociology, medicine, genetics, and even psychology. I thought I provided valid resources, including primary research articles written by him about his work, various video clips of his interviews on national television, etc. Could you possibly give me any pointers to improve the article? I've noticed other plastic surgeons who have wikipedia pages, but do not have any notable achievement in the plastic surgery and aesthetic field.

I greatly appreciate your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by St2671 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

find reliable sauces, then cite them.--gaLAXP|Talk! 20:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, St2671. IMO, your draft as it stands will not pass review. First, no one deserves an article. Notability, as it appears you are aware, is required. It also appears you do not understand what notability means on Wikipedia. In the simplest terms, it means this: a subject is notable if it has been written about in detail by multiple reliable sources which are totally independent of the subject. So, how does that apply to the good doctor? The majority of your citations are to works authored by him. Those are not independent and are of no use in establishing notability, although you can reference facts to them. His bio from his employer is not independent. YouTube videos (or Wikipedia, which you've cited) are not reliable sources and cannot be used at all. The article in the NYT just mentioned his name in passing - not discussion in detail and of no use in establishing notability. What you need are articles that discuss him (not his work, but he himself) in detail in sources independent of him completely that are not interviews. It is possible that he could meet WP:NPROF, the notability standard for academics, if his work is cited substantially in other's works, but I'm not too conversant with that standard and you have not shown anything like that. John from Idegon (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

My Infobox won't display in the relevant article

Hi there, and Thank You in advance for any helpful info.

I try to implement an infobox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MPhilMKBielicky/sandbox

into the article

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bielický

whenever I hit preview though I see a "Template:Infobox artist " text in red (Sorry if this is not the exact wording, I try to translate from German). So I tried to put it up on review and only got a "this seems to be a test" kind of decline.

How can I get the infobox to work?

Thank you again for your time,

MPhilMKBielicky (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi MPhilMKBielicky, welcome to the Teahouse. Each Wikipedia language has different templates and can decide their own policies. The German Wikipedia has no equivalent of Template:Infobox artist or the general Template:Infobox person. de:Kategorie:Vorlage:Infobox Person shows infoboxes for some professions but not artists. Google translation of the text there: "Note: The use of infoboxes for persons is controversial in German-language Wikipedia. Before a new infobox is installed, the respective specialist portal or the responsible editorial department should always be approved." PrimeHunter (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

How should I solve this dispute.

Hi, I entered a dispute with another editor here in section "Discussion about improving this page". The counterparty seems take this issue very personal at the very beginning and keep refusing to discuss the content while I stated my reasons over and over again. My question is where should I seek help? "Resolving content disputes with outside help" or "Resolving user conduct disputes"? -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fenal Kalundo. Your concerns were responded to by other editors in the talk page section above, and it is not useful to repeat yourself. You have not yet obtained consensus for the changes that you propose. You are criticizing one of the sources, a book, by claiming that the author's conclusions are only opinion. The best place to discuss the reliability of a source is the Reliable sources noticeboard. You may also want to formulate a carefully worded Request for comment, which will bring in uninvolved editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you for advice, I'm repeating is bcs in the talk while it appears my counterparty is discussing, they don't address my argument at all. I have given very specific reasons and focus on the content, but since my counterparty keep throwing words irrelevant to the content I don't know if they can understand my point. I actually have already sought help from Reliable sources noticeboard at section "14.Can I conclude this source unreliable?" and it said the problem of this source is, quoted, "this is ore an issue of Undue weight being given to one version of events". –– Fenal Kalundo (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Need help on potential editing war.

Hi, I'm a new editor. I'm trying editing something controversial. I first raise my concerns about some issues, which are obviously against the five pillars of Wikipedia, in the talk page. Then I undo twice the main article, so nothing changed, to attract attention. I ask editors who support current edition to add reliable sources etc. and I found my request was completely ignore. Then I try first replace the unreliable source with the citation mark "citation needed", but found my edit was reverted without provided any reason that challenge the reason I provided in talk page. I don't want to enter into an editing war here, what should I do?

The page is here: Nathu La and Cho La clashes. The concerns I raised are in section "Discussion about improving this page" in talk page. --Fenal Kalundo (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If you have a concern about a source being reliable, the proper place to ask is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You can also tag the source with {{Unreliable source?}}. What you don't do is remove a source and add a {{citation needed}} tag. ~ GB fan 11:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Got it, thank you. Can I also ask where should I seek help if I think the page includes irrelevant information? -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You have already taken the first steps in dispute resolution, Fenal Kalundo. That link tells you how you can proceed further. --ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

ColinFine Thank you, I am actually proceeding now. :) -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Wynyard Group

Hi,

Please review this page and let me know what all changes it need.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:James_aaron/sandbox

Thanks

James aaron (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

(The draft is now at Draft:Wynyard Group). Most of the sources cited are not independent, being based on statements made by personnel of the company. It nowhere mentions the rather important fact that Wynard group went into liquidation earlier this year. Maproom (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Please help to make the required changes on the page. It's a notable company and hence the page must exist.

User:James aaron - That is one of the less persuasive requests for help that I have seen. The article should explain why the company is notable. Anyone can merely state that the company is notable. Also, if you are being paid by the company, you must declare your conflict of interest. If the company went into liquidation, and the article does not say that, are you asking Wikipedia to present a false picture of the company to our readers? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon - It's a public company hence I feel that must be notable enough to be present on wikipedia.

James aaron, existence is not sufficient for inclusion here. If you have some connection to this organization, you must declare it. I just declined your draft again, and without some indication that you understand this isn't Facebook or LinkedIn and some indication that you understand what you've been told repeatedly about why your draft is being declined, I'm leaning yo nominate it for deletion as strictly promotional. John from Idegon (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon - No, I don't have any kind of personal relation with the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James aaron (talk • contribs) 09:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Creating Page on Company

For a case study for my school (the University of Pennsylvania) I had to research the transaction of a Polish IT outsourcing giant, IT Kontrakt. However, there was barely any information available in English regarding the Company. Is it possible for me to write an article about ITKontrakt to help my fellow students, even thought its about a company?

WNSpencer (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi WNSpencer as long as you have sufficient sources (in any language) so that the article would comply with either the notability guidelines for companies or the general notability guideline, an article would be possible. However please do not write a "student's guide", the article needs to be written for Wikipedia in accordance with the encyclopedic standards, see the You first article guide. That it might be useful for students would be a secondary benefit, not the main reason for its existence. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

What is the proper style for "Time" magazine?

I came across this edit to Bradley Cooper (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Cooper&type=revision&diff=788570028&oldid=786868066) that seemed to me to be incorrect.

I've asked one editor about it and was told I'm wrong, but no explanation was offered, so maybe someone here can clarify the situation for me.

Should the magazine be referred to as "Time" or "TIME"?
- The argument FOR using "TIME" is that the publisher styles it as "TIME".
- Here are the counter-arguments:
  - Usage across Wikipedia varies, though it looks to me like the large majority of pages use "Time" rather than "TIME".
  - Per WP:MOSTM: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of trademark owners.
  - Virtually all style guides (well, ALL the style guides I checked) say to use "Time".

So, aside from the fact that I'm "picking at" a minor issue, why am I wrong? Fabrickator (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Fabrickator. On the substantive point, i think you are correct. However, it is a minor point, and you have been edit-warring over it, which is much more incorrect. So has Froid. You should have taken it to the article talk page after the first revert. Do not revert again or you will be blocked for edit warring. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I would be interested in some additional opinions, as this one seems fairly weak. Fabrickator (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

An administrator tells you that if you revert again, you'll be blocked, and that's a weak opinion? Technically, you are correct. It isn't an opinion, it's your final warning. Time to put down the staff and back away from the deceased equine. Edit warring over MOS is a seriously bad idea. Edit warring over MOS on a featured article is an even worse idea. John from Idegon (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Fabrickator, that administrator's opinion from DES was far from "fairly weak". It was a clear and unambiguous warning, rooted in policy. I urge you to take that warning seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Get all the opinions you like, Fabrickator. Better yet, start a discussion on the question of TIME vs Time on Talk:Bradley Cooper. Seek opinions on that issue there. Just don't keep edit-warring. I try not to be overly dramatic or hostile about things. I prefer to be friendly and helpful. But if I see another revert on the TIME vs Time thing from either you or Froid, I will block. And I left formal warnings on both your talk pages so that if anyone else notices such a revert and looks around, they will know that a block is warranted. I don't block that much -- about 150 compared to over 2500 pages deleted, and I'm noted for inclusionism. But edit warring will get me to block every time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: @Cullen328: I'm not sure why we even concern ourself with MOS if we would not be concerned with it on a featured article. And if an editor erroneously changes from correct style to incorrect style on one page, they will go on and pollute more pages with that erroneous change, and likely other editors will follow the erroneous example. I'm just trying to establish what the proper style is. I certainly welcome suggestions about what the next step in the process is so that we can get the desired result without creating unnecessary disruption. I said the comment "I think you are correct" was weak because it's just one editor's opinion about the correct style, some additional opinions would be helpful. Fabrickator (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe that you are right. But you won't impress anyone by edit-warring, you'll just annoy people. Instead, make your case on the talk page. You could there point out that the Wikipedia article is called Time (magazine). Maproom (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem is not whether it is right or wrong, it is about how you and the other editor are conducting yourselves. When a change is reverted, the very next thing that should happen is a discussion should ensue. Ideally, this should be started by the editor making the change that was reverted. You've already been told this. If the back and forth reverting continues after that, both editors are edit warring. It does not have to reach 3RR to be edit warring. Best course of action for you would be to start that discussion, whether it is "up to you" to start it or not. Worst course if action would be to revert again. You've been told in no uncertain terms that will earn you an immediate block. Not listening to advice you've asked for, especially when the same thing has been told to you by three separate editors, one an administrator, who combined have well over 100,000 edits worth of experience, is in itself disruptive. Go discuss things like gentlemen (or ladies, whichever applies) on the article talk page. One of the pillar policies on Wikipedia is Ignore all rules. That generally applies only to content. Behavioral policies such as edit warring are applied much more strictly. Except for legal things like copyright and libel, content is only guided by rules. It is decided by consensus, which is established on the article's talk page. Not here. John from Idegon (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have restored "Time" [3] which was the stable version before the conflict and is not only in agreement with MOS:TMRULES but the first example there. If the other editor wants it changed from the stable version against the manual of style and there is opposition then it should normally be up to them to seek consensus for the change. But you should have discussed it after being reverted the first time. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for options. I'm only reverting this once. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Question Regarding Page Created in Sandbox - Disha Eye Hospital

Hello,

This would be my first try at creating an article. I have done a lot of research about what is accepted and what is not in Wiki. I tried my best implementing them. My article review was rejected with a suggestion that I should add more references. I have added as much as could find. Trying to find more. I would be really grateful if the other issues (if any) are pointed our to me. I have not intentions of violating any policies. DebotiC (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@DebotiC: Hello and welcome. You have added references, but you have not added content to the article that the references support. The article currently reads to me as a listing in a business directory or from the hospital's website and not an encyclopedic article. I would suggest that you review some other articles on hospitals (such as Massachusetts General Hospital, or others) to get an idea of what is expected for these articles. I'm also not clear on how this hospital is notable per notability guidelines; please review them(and perhaps the notability will be clearer if you expand your draft more).

I would stress that successfully creating a Wikipedia article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. It takes time, practice, and effort, and is often difficult for new users to jump into first thing. Users that are successful in creating articles usually started smaller by making changes to existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works as they go. It's OK if you haven't done that, but you will need to take extra care if you want your article to be successful. If you haven't already, you may want to review this page on creating your first article which gives some good information. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@331dot: Thank you so much for your feedback. I understand what you are saying here. And you are right, it is quite difficult to successfully publish an article here. As you suggested, I will do more research and try making small edits in other articles to understand fully how these things work. Hopefully I will be able to make the necessary changes to my article. Though I may need more suggestions regarding this. Thanks again.DebotiC (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

AfC inaugural editor has gone dark (non-responsive for 20+ days)

this editor says the article "needs non-local refs" (it has non-local refs) and "needs refs that are not from the political sphere" (a personal interpretation of the need for refs to be independent, reliable, in-depth ie. non trivial / non directory info only).

these queries were posed over 20 days ago. no response. despite plenty of further talk edits on their page.

may the Teahouse volunteers pls clarify: what is meant to happen when an editor makes personal interpretations of the rules, then stops responding to their talk page??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Primefac/Archive_10#query_re_national_coverage.2C_reliable.2C_independent...

Skinduptruk (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Then you ask someone else. There's no need to wait 20 days. Primefac doesn't own that draft, and other editors are equally qualified to make judgments.

In response to your discussion with Primefac, you quoted a section about "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" (emphasis mine). However, Kurt Pudniks' campaign failed, so he never held that office.

It seems to me like Primefac was right. WP:POLOUTCOMES states "Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted." Player 03 (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

How do I "ask someone else"? Please read the policy excerpt in full, it goes on to refer to unelected candidates who may indeed meet notability criteria. You mention criteria for "below national level" but this was at the Aus federal level. Skinduptruk (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Using Wikidata on Wikipedia

I am new to editing Wikipedia, and I have been reading about using Wikidata on Wikipedia. However, after reading various help and FAQ links, I am still confused about how Wikidata works, and before I use Wikidata I figure that I should get a better understanding of how it works. Does Wikidata update Wikipedia articles with new information when the Wikidata item is edited? How is Wikidata information integrated into Wikipedia articles? Are all Wikipedia articles required to have a corresponding Wikidata item? Any answers and/or help links would be greatly appreciated! Name goes here (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Name goes here. Yes, as far as I know, Wikidata items automatically sync in both directions if they are in the proper template here. However, this forum is for answering questions about English Wikipedia. Wikidata is a separate website and I've noticed it doesn't seem to have strong support in the en.wiki community in general. Perhaps someone here will be able to help you, but I'm not going to bet on it. John from Idegon (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Name goes here. I know a little about Wikidata, and I will try to answer. Wikidata is a pretty new project, and there is less integration than there undoubtedly will be. I doubt if it will ever be appropriate for very much information in the body of an article to come from Wikidata; but templates, especially infobox templates, are gradually being rewritten to draw the information from Wikidata. I don't know how far they've got on this, but I think that some infoboxes do and others don't. I believe that there are magic words to pull information from Wikidata that could be used elsewhere in articles, but I don't know how appropriate these would be, or how much they are currently used. As for having a corresponding Wikidata item: I'm pretty sure there is no requirement, but it is obviously desirable. It is the best way to provide links to corresponding articles in other languages (though that is problematic if roughly corresponding articles have different scope). --ColinFine (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, this makes much more sense now. Thank you John from Idegon and ColinFine for your help! Name goes here (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Unusual user account

I inadvertently ran across an account which appears to have been established for the purpose of disparaging and libeling a juvenile. How can this abuse be reported?--Quisqualis (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The user has been blocked and all their edits deleted. ~ GB fan 15:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

And revdeled so that only admins can see them. In future such a case could be reported at WP:ANI althogh this worked just fine. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Notability of web sites

How is notability of any website judged by editors or who ever judges themRamcoimbatore (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The notability guideline for Web pages is Wikipedia:Notability (web). ~ GB fan 15:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

My page has been rejected, what should I change?

My page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_North_Highland_Way) has been rejected for reading too much like a tour guide, I received very little feedback, however, I have edited the areas where the feedback was more specific. I don't want to remove too much of the page, as I feel that I have provided useful information about the route, and the sections explaining the route would appear very empty if I was to remove any more. I consulted the West Highland Way page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Highland_Way) when creating my article and I feel that I have followed a similar format, could anyone provide me with some more feedback or guidance on my article so that I can resubmit it? Thank you in advance. EleanorLC (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

On a very quick look, EleanorLC, I would say that the History section looks entirely appropriate (well done!), but the Route section is much too long and inappropriate in tone. Remove all the subsections entirely, and I think it might be reasonable. Note that just because another article exists, does not mean that it is a suitable model to copy: many of our five million articles are substandard. (West Highland Way could be much improved in the same way.) In general, unless an article has been accepted as a Good article, don't use it as a model. --ColinFine (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Pick just about any article on a road in the US state of Michigan. Virtually all of them are at least "Good" level articles, most "Featured" level, the best of the best. Hope that helps, EleanorLC. John from Idegon (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The North Highland Way isn't actually a road, John from Idegon (though that's not to say that a featured article on a slightly different topic won't provide a useful model). Cordless Larry (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

You can consider creating an article on Wikivoyage with the "tour guide" tone and the content of your article as it stands. The content of your draft is perfectly suitable for Wikivoyage. You can then follow the advice of the editors above to submit a draft on Wikipedia as well. Thanks! Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 10:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all very much for your help, ColinFine should I leave the "introduction" to the route as it is, and remove the information about each section entirely? I shall also definitely submit the article to Wikivoyage, thank you! EleanorLC (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I would say so, yes, EleanorLC. The lead, and the History sections seem fine; the four paragraphs of the section "The Route" will be OK with some editing to remove peacock language (no Wikipedia article should ever describe anything in evaluative terms such as "dramatic", unless directly quoting a reliable independent source) and to make sure there is no original research, i.e. everything it says comes from a reliable published source. --ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Linking together articles in different languages

Hello! This is the first time I try to edit anything major (outside grammatical errors), also my first time using a username here so let me know what I do wrong ;)

I noticed that between Norwegian and English, for things that have both a common and scientific name, there is sometimes two English articles but the Norwegian ones have been joined together. An example is Potash, Potassium carbonate, while the Norwegian wiki has Potassium Carbonate (kaliumkarbonat) redirect to Potash (pottaske). And to make matters worse, potash had no Norwegian link, while potassium carbonate linked to pottaske. I fixed this already though. The Norwegian article claims that the two are exactly the same, while in English it is clear that while potassium carbonate is the main constituent of potash, potash can also contain other things (that is, it is NOT pure potassium carbonate).

My question is, what is right to do here now? Should I split up the Norwegian article and link the individual ones to their respective English ones? This seems most logical. But how would I keep the Norwegian pages linked together? I don't want to add more confusion or mess! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purvel (talk • contribs) 16:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

That depends on how "pottaske" is used in Norwegian. If many Norwegian speakers use it to refer to the mixture of chemicals that can be left by a fire and not to the pure chemical, I think you would be justified in splitting the existing article. But it would be best to discuss it on the article's talk page first. Maproom (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Purvel. One thing you didn't do here that you should have, is to sign your post. You can do this by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of it. You should sign your posts on all discussion pages, such as this one and article talk pages. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Changing Article Name

Exactly what it says on the tin. How would one go about doing that?Drlizardo (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Help:Moving a page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Drlizardo. You change the name of an article by moving it - but your account is too new to have access to that fuhction yet. When the account has made 10 edits (which you already have) and is four days old, you will be able to move pages. In the meantime, there are various possibilities: you could start a discussion about it on the article's talk page; or you could post at Requested moves. Or you could wait another three days and then do the move yourself. Since you are new, I would recommend you discuss it first, as the rules on article titles are not always completely obvious. --ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Button location

Where on the page is a "button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion"? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LFSmith (talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi LFSmith, welcome to the Teahouse. I guess you refer to Draft:Stephen A. Smith (author/professor). The page has been deleted so the button mentioned at User talk:LFSmith#Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Stephen A. Smith (author/professor) is no longer there. Note the post also says: "However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay." PrimeHunter (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Page deleted 2 times in user Singhbalvind

i just want to put information regarding our NGO in Wikipedia. i saw lot of NGO's have a listing in wikipedia. but 2 times my page has been deleted. user : Singhbalvind

what kind of information does wikipedia accept. BalvindSinghbalvind (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Singhbalvind. We accept articles that comply with our policies and guidelines, written about topics that are notable. Please read and study Your first article, and feel free to ask more specific questions at the Teahouse at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

2016 nfl quarterback records

Because this is expected to be a larger page, can you please get someone to help me out with this page? I would like someone. I would assume it would be, User: Narky Blert, mainly because he was the last guy other than me to edit this page.Vinnylospo (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Vinnylospo. Have you considered asking at WT:WikiProject National Football League? --ColinFine (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

How to create a wiki page...??!

Hello Team,

I see that , when I search on few topics in Wikipedia, I didn't find any information on this... Can we prepare/write or create the page of new topic/subject. If yes how can I create... ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imranalihbs (talk • contribs) 08:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Imranalihbs, and welcome to Wikipedia. The answer is yes, you can create a new article. However, it is much harder than people realise to create an article which gets accepted, and I advise you to spend some months learning about Wikipedia by making improvements to some of our existing five million articles (many of them are in dire need of it!) before you embark on a new article. Please read your first article, and come back here if you have any questions. --ColinFine (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Help with Hyperlink

Can someone please add the hyperlink to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_The_Cannibal%E2%80%99s_Pot:_Lessons_for_America_From_Post-Apartheid_South_Africa this into the infobook box for this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Revolution?action=edit?

I can't figure it out for the life of me.

Thanks Kc2290 (talk)kc2290Kc2290 (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Done To make a wikilink work, you need to get the name of the article exactly right, including capitalisation and the shape of any apostrophes. (I suspect that the use of a curly apostrophe in an article title is discouraged, but there's one there.) Maproom (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it is recommended, here. I have moved the article accordingly. Maproom (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Moves...

Hi, I'm a new user and I'm interested in moves. Yet when I moved Knock, Knock, Ginger to Ding, Dong, Ditch, it got reverted. Thanks, RullRatbwan (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, RullRatbwan. You made a change, and Mutt Lunker disagreed, and reverted your change, with the comment " Revert undiscussed move on spurious WP:COMMONNAME grounds, against MOS:ENGVAR". This is how things are supposed to work on Wikipedia: see WP:BRD. You can now either accept Mutt Lunker's version, or open a discussion on the article's talk page and work to reach consensus. --ColinFine (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Help needed from an experienced editor please!

Hello Teahouse! Thanks for inviting me to this space :) I need help from an experienced editor please! I have been editing the draft:DriveWorks page but it was declined twice and I need some guidance.

This page has been active since 2008, and I went in to edit it as it was outdated so I was flagged as a new editor. This led to the page being deleted as needing to establish notability. I then made some edits and submitted for re-review and it was declined as still needing more references. After advice from admins I fixed the issue and it has now been declined again as advetising. I explained to the editor who declined it why it's not advertising (they highlighted the editions and methodology sections) - both of which are backed up with sources and needed to explain what DriveWorks is as it isn't just one product but has several different editions.

I've asked the admin who declined for help and guidance to amend the issue but I think they see the fact I work for DriveWorks as an issue (even though I've explained the page was already live a long time before I worked here, I have declared my COI and the edits I've made have actually removed text and added notability from a range of independant sources). Please could someone help me :( sorry for the long message and thank you! Danielle DanielleDriveWorks (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

That article certainly needs a lot of work. It could usefully start by explaining what "DriveWorks" is – hardware, computer software, or something else?

Welcome to the Teahouse, DanielleDriveWorks. Your draft article reads like an advertisement to me, or a company brochure. Wikipedia is absolutely not a promotional website. Eliminate all promotional language and write from the neutral point of view. Summarize what reliable sources completely unaffiliated with the company say about it, and eliminate anything evaluative that the company says about itself and its products. Eliminate all industry jargon and insider language. The draft needs a radical trimming and complete rewrite. It cannot possibly be approved in its current form. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Cullen328:, ok thank you for the advice :) I will go back and work on it! Danielle DanielleDriveWorks (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)