Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 921

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 915 Archive 919 Archive 920 Archive 921 Archive 922 Archive 923 Archive 925

Karen Hoyos International - Why is the article not being accepted?

I AM CURIOUS WHY THIS IS NOT CONSIDERED NOTABLE FOR WIKIPEDIA AT THIS TIME. THE ORGANIZATION HAS RECEIVED PRESS FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES, HUFFINGTON POST, AND THE FOUNDER HAS BEEN PUBLISHED BY SIMON AND SCHUSTER AND POST HILL PRESS.

Extended content

Karen Hoyos International Karen Hoyos International, also known by the acronym KHI, is a global motivational speaking and coaching, equity, inclusion, and diversity management company headquartered in Miami, Florida, founded by Colombian born entrepreneur and motivations speaker, Karen Hoyos. Hoyos, the CEO, identified the need for motivational speaking to have a world wide presence with a significant focus in the Latin American marketplace. The business provides resources for business professionals, entrepreneurs, women, and diverse nonprofit leaders worldwide. KHI was originally headquartered in New York, New York until its current move to Miami, Florida in 2017. The company has significant staffing in Latin America, North America, and the Caribbean, with a smaller presence in Africa, Europe, and Asia. KHI Philanthropy KHI has been significant in providing ongoing global support and humanitarian aid. Hoyos frequently travels to the country to provide outreach and her philanthropic and business endeavors are covered heavily in both print and digital media. Additionally, she and her executive team of Chief Operations Officer - Tiffany Edwards, CFRE and Team Leader - Juan Restrepo are heavily involved in the implementation of philanthropic projects, with a focus on domestic violence, equity, editorial discrimination, diversity and inclusion, poverty alleviation, and youth initiatives. KHI provides leadership support and resources for Milagros Day, the NAACP, and the Diplomats Diversi-Tea Gala. Hoyos is one of the co-founders of Milagros Day with Dawn Diaz. The KHI Milagros Day collaboration was featured in Huffington Post, on CBS, and NBC. KHI Ambassadors Program KHI offers and ambassadors training program to help individuals become entrepreneurs and motivational speakers with the opportunity to learn and expand their knowledge with hands on training from KHI executive team members and volunteers. KHI Consulting KHI Consulting works with many corporate, nonprofit, and government entities on their marketing, human resources, training and development, equity, fund development, and educational programs. KHI Consulting is known for aiding entrepreneurs with corporate and nonprofit growth and expansion strategies, breaking through barriers to progress, and creating partnerships. Media KHI provides over 1000 hours of training content – originating for KHI’s executive management team across all forms of media including TV, audio, fixed media, and mobile. The company’s multimedia product offerings include programming such as the Magic of Manifestation, Living Your Purpose. It provides online coaching and training sessions along with on demand training programs in English and Spanish. Hoyos’ first book, Purpose: The Ultimate Quest, was published by Post Hill Press and distributed through Simon and Schuster. The book's Foreward was written by Ambassador April Sutton, founder of the Diplomats Diversi-Tea Gala and youngest Inductee into the Broadcasters Hall of Fame. Hoyos and the transformational work of KHI has been covered on Fox News, CNN, and the United Nations. References https://www.huffingtonpost.com/amber-browningcoyle/survivors-of-domestic-violence-walk-for-change_b_7253448.html https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/05/12/domestic-violence-victims... http://nbclatino.com/2013/05/06/latina-leaders-turning-abuse-into-success/#s:milagrosday4 https://miamidiario.com/mariposa-films-presenta-historias-de-grandes-mujeres-en-miami/ https://www.prlog.org/12403251-milagros-day-worldwide-celebrates-five-years-of-turning-abuse-into- www.lacosmopolatina.com/karen-hoyos https://vdocuments.site/impact-positive-change-magazine-mar-issue.html https://www.karenhoyos.com/ https://posthillpress.com/book/purpose-the-ultimate-quest https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Purpose/Karen-Hoyos/9781682618073

— Preceding unsigned comment added by April2019 (talkcontribs) 23:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@April2019: You have asked the exact same question at the AFC Help Desk, so I doubt you'll get an answer here. In future, never type in capital letters. We regard it as SHOUTING!, yet ironically it won't get you more noticed. Please also, in future, sign every talk page post with four keyboard tildes right at the very end (like this:~~~~) Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

What should I do with pervasive use of 2d and 3d for 2nd and 3rd?

Hi, I've been adding leads for a while and tidy up some things I find as I go along. Lately, I've been making leads for the various squadrons in List of United States Air Force squadrons. I corrected a few typos of 3d and 2d to 3rd and 2nd, but I'm now finding them everywhere, including here: 2d Airborne Command and Control Squadron. It's 2d throughout the article and there's a redirect from 2nd Airborne Command and Control Squadron. I checked the Air Force website, where it's called the 2nd (https://www.offutt.af.mil/News/Article/1163199/wing-makes-move-to-nebraska/). I'm hesitant about changing such a pervasive usage, and reluctant to have time-consuming edits undone if I should have just left it. Some advice would be most welcome. – Shillings1005 (talk) 06:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Shillings1005 welcome to the Teahouse. (Declaration: I know zilch about this topic) You do right to raise your concerns before diving in to make alterations. Like you, I am also somewhat bemused by this seemingly illogical naming convention, especially as all of the official websites I've checked thus far either use 2nd, 3rd, 942nd squadron etc in their homepage titles, or some very short abbreviation like 2ACCS. That said, I see both forms used by the 552nd Air Control Wing (see home page) versus (welcome page)
Now Wikipedia has a naming policy called WP:COMMONNAME, whereby the title of articles is decided upon by what independent published sources mostly refer to a topic, not what the subject calls itself. That said, I can see no rationale for using such incomprehensible naming like 2d for 2nd unless all the military operatives deployed there are distant cousins of Flat Stanley! We would not name articles by what a bunch of military insiders like to call something - and clearly they do do this, but by what other reliable independent sources (worth checking news media and military books) generally call it. Because this unusual naming has been used across so many articles, it's almost inevitable that these concerns have been previously discussed and agreed somewhere. I suggest you should wait a while to see if anyone more knowledgeable answers here first, and then go over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history where you could search their archives before re-posting your question there. I see there is a style guide at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history, but I can find no answer to your question there. I agree with you that these odd namings are so widespread in titling and in content that it would be extremely unwise to unilaterally attempt to 'correct' them when there may well have been some previous WP:RFC on how they should be handled. But they seem pretty daft to me, and I would have expected the 'correct' name and then any insider abbreviation to be explicitly mentioned and emboldened within the lead paragraphs of the relevant articles. But my uninformed opinion doesn't count for much in this arena. It would be good to have feedback from you about how you get on. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Nick Moyes and Shillings1005, 2d and 2nd are both correct usage, choice is generally a matter of preference in general writing, but in this case we're talking about the names of something. If we look at List of United States Air Force airborne command and control squadrons we see the link to 2nd Airborne Command and Control Squadron written out with 2nd, but that link redirects to 2d, so I suspect there's been discussion and consensus somewhere. valereee (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
MOS:ORDINAL covers this. See discussion at WT:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers/Archive_158#MOS:ORDINAL and the related Milhist discussion at WT:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_147#AFSOC_353_SOG_correct_title_-_353rd/353d Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Gosh, that took quite some reading through, but thanks, Martin of Sheffield for those links to really significant discussions which clearly shows that consensus was reached to change our 'Manual of Style to require 'nd' and 'rd' to indicate 2nd and 3rd or 552nd, and that this should be taken to include all the military article titles and their contents. (Pinging Valereee as this, I'm afraid, counters the advice you kindly gave in good faith.) Personally, I'm not going to wade through the lot and change them, but some Wikignome might well fancy the task (probably using WP:AWB than attempting it manually). Hope that gives you your answer, Shillings1005. And should you decide to make those changes, my advice would be to include in any edit summary reference to both MOS:ORDINAL, and also the military-orientated archived discussion that led to that near-unanimous consensus and re-wording of our Manual of Style. Thanks to all. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi again, and thank you very much Nick Moyes, Valereee, and especially Martin of Sheffield, for clearing that up for me. I've just been reading through all that and counting up how many articles need to be changed (a lot). A few more queries: in one such article where the title has already been changed, but not much in the text, I wrote in the lead The 33rd Fighter Wing, sometimes written 33d Fighter Wing, (33 FW) is a United States Air Force unit… I took my cue from Nick Moyes's suggestion to highlight the alternative in the lead, because there's plenty of inconsistency still within the article that can't be changed (refs for instance, and insignia) – any good reason why I shouldn't proceed in like fashion with further articles?; also, is there a simple way to get introduced to WP:AWB? – Shillings1005 (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@Shillings1005: What you've started on 33rd Fighter Wing looks fine to me. (Offhand, I can't remember whether our guidelines require the acronym in bold too - I suspect it does, but would have to check). You can probably use 'Categories' as well as 'Lists' to help you find articles, even without AWB. You do have nearly double the minimum number of mainspace edits to be able request and be granted permission to use AWB - but it is a very powerful tool! When I had it installed on my last PC I only ever used it for routine finding things like finding and fixing typos, but even then, care is needed not to be gung-ho about accepting every suggested change you're offered without careful checking. Not liking to upset other editors, I still might, myself, be minded to drop by WikiProject Military and leave a note to say what you're proposing to do and show one 'fixed' example to get feedback - ensuring that you've addressed all the ordinal numbering right throughout the article. On the basis of our discussion above, I can't see anyone objecting - assuming you've done it all right - but it's always nice to explain what you're going to do if you are planning minor edits to innumerable articles to which someone might still have a strong - and now outdated - view about. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@Shillings1005: IMHO your approach in the lead satisfies both MOS and, more importantly, WP:RF. The principal of least surprise applies. Alternatively are there any WikiGnomes wanting to nip around the USAF with a can of paint? :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Nick Moyes, oh, I didn't mean correct usage as WP's MOS, just in general writing using 2d vs 2nd are both acceptable. 2d is a bit obsolete, though, so I'm not surprised that MOS came to consensus on 2nd. valereee (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. To me 2d and 3d either refer to old UK currency (tu'ppence or threepence - pronounced throopence), or two and three dimensions. I chuckled at the comments from the American editors who thought it was a UK/European convention, whilst the UK/European editors was thought it was the Americans who were messing with the English language. Oh well, at least we know what Wikipedia thinks of it now. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment: for reference, here are some previous discussions of military unit ordinal indicators: 132nd Fighter Wing, 93rd Infantry Division, Naming conventions (military units), Manual of Style (dates and numbers). --Kkmurray (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

U.S. history of alcohol minimum purchase age by state

I would like to correct the capitalization of this title of this article, but I have been unable to discover the approved method to get to the title. I believe it should be written thus:

“U.S. History of Alcohol Minimum Purchase Age by State”

SOMETHING FOR MY FELLOW VOLUNTEER EDITORS TO CONSIDER: Left to my own devices, I would seek to bring Wikipedia into the new millennium by changing “U.S.” in this instance to simply “US,” but I am aware that it is not my right to make that change for everyone else.

Please consider these examples: Mrs Anna C Miller, 1101 Rochester Blvd, Charles T Yackel, USA, Dr Angus MacClellan. I don’t suppose anyone reading this was confused by the lack of period in the foregoing examples, so why should we persist in this ancient and unbalanced tradition. I believe that within the next 10-20 years, dropping superfluous periods will be widely approved because it makes sense, looks better because it is balanced and simple, and certainly has a more modern appearance. According to my brother, a US Army Lt Col, at least some parts of the military have already jumped onto this bandwagon with me, and with great enthusiasm! Is this written by a young person? No! I am 63 years old (or perhaps I should use the “63 years young” instead — naw!). Y’all just wait and see if I’m correct in my assertion. Feel free to share the bandwagon with (some parts of) the US Army and me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacemaker427 (talkcontribs) 08:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

No. Headings are written in sentence case, see MOS:HEADINGS. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Lacemaker427. The way to change the title of a Wikipedia page is explained in WP:MOVE, but moving a page can be tricky and sometimes contentious; so, I would not recommend that you do so without first proposing the change at Talk:U.S. history of alcohol minimum purchase age by state to see what others think and whether you can establish a consensus to make such a change.
As for the other parts of your post, English Wikipedia is edited by people from all around the world who use different national varieties of English; so, Wikipedia doesn’t have one preferred version as explained in WP:ENGVAR. Wikipedia does, however, have a manual of style that all editors are encourage to try and follow as much as possible. This MOS is designed to try and ensure that there is at least some project-wide consistency when it comes to articles for things like formatting, article titles, image use, etc. Article titles are covered in WP:TITLE; so, you might want to take a look there for more information on why Wikipedia prefers sentence case capitalization for such things. As for the US without the periods, this is covered in MOS:NOTUSA.
Finally, the way people read, speak and write in English is constantly changing with each generation; so, if you’d like to propose ways for changing some of Wikipedia policies and guidelines related to such things, you can do so on the talk page of whichever policy/guideline you think needs to be changed. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Help with Talk Page

Hello,

I edited a talk page that got flagged for being a page that was previously removed. I'm working to get it looking right and could use some help making sure I am on the right track. Made the mistake of deleting the warning about speedy removal when I thought I fixed the issue. The page is Alan Tafoya (actor) in Talk.

Thanks in advance for any advice on it.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Odin (talkcontribs) 04:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jay Odin. I'm not sure exacty what you're trying to do, but it looks like you're trying to create/recreate an article in the talk namespace at Talk:Alan Tafoya (actor). This is not really something you should be doing in the talk namespace at all and is not how the talk namespace is intended to be used. I would suggest that you move the content from that talk page to a user space draft as soon as possible before the talk page is deleted per WP:G8.
There was an article titled Alan Tafoya (actor), but this was deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Tafoya. This doesn't mean that an article about Tafoya can never be created again, but it does mean that you're going to have to follow proper process if you want to do so.
Sometimes an article is deleted because at the time it was too soon for one to have been created in the first place; over time, however, things can change and the subject may subsequently receive the significant coverage in reliable sources necessary for an article to be written. So, if you feel that's the case with Tafoya, you should probably create a draft first and submit it for review via WP:AFC. This will give an AfC reviewer a chance to look over the article and determine whether Tafoya now meets Wikipedia:Notability. Another option would be for you to work on a draft for the article and then request that it be restored via a deletion review. You can explain in your request that you've addressed the issues which previously led to the article's deletion and would like the article restored. The deletion review might not immediately restore it to article status, but it might restore it to draft status where you can continue to work on it. Please be advised, however, that simply trying to submit the previously deleted version of the article either verbatim or with only some minor tweaks (i.e. cosmetic improvements being made that don't address the reason why it was deleted in the first place) will only lead to whatever you created being re-deleted per WP:G4. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I moved it from Talk to Draft and will now look into submitting it for review. --Jay Odin (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

At Draft:Alan Tafoya (actor) one step needed is to convert all of the references from naked URLs to references in accepted Wikipedia format. David notMD (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Question asked @ Teahouse, then the search for those replies goes on, and on, and on!

I asked a question @ Teahouse, then started getting emails about replies to that question. I used the link in the email, but it didn’t take me to the reply. What am I missing here? Since I’m having this particular issue, I don’t know if I’ll ever see any replies to this question. What a conundrum! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacemaker427 (talkcontribs) 11:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would have received emails. There is a notice on your user talk page at User talk:Lacemaker427#Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!, and that gives a link to your previous question and answers at WP:TH#U.S. history of alcohol minimum purchase age by state. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Another notice on your user talkpage, at User talk:Lacemaker427#Signing comments, points out that you should be signing your messages here, either with 4 tildes or with the signature button on the edit toolbar, see WP:Signature. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Lacemaker427 You probably have your Preferences set to receive emails every time someone posts to your user talk page. You can go into your Preferences and turn this off if you wish. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
331dot, I'm thinking she may not have found her talk page or realized there were alert notifications at the top of the page yet. I sent her an email explaining it. valereee (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Article rejected because reference behind paywall. How to resolve?

@Curb Safe Charmer: I had an article rejected because its references were behind a paywall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Twomey

This seems unfair: Wikipedia wants credible references, and actual, real newspapers are precisely the places that are behind paywalls. I have an image of the article; might submitting this be acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siliconemango (talkcontribs) 13:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have ignored the actual important part of the advice given to you by the person who reviewed your draft. "the other references do not provide the in-depth, reliable, independent coverage about Twomey necessary for there to be an article about him." Even if that one other reference was readable, there just isn't enough reliable, independent source material about the full bredth and depth of Twomey's life and career to build an article around. The paywall isn't an issue, and has nothing to do with why Twomey doesn't merit an article. You can resolve the problem by gathering more in-depth source text about his life. If that text doesn't exist, then there shouldn't be an article about him at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 13:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Siliconemango, the problem is more that a single reliable source isn't enough. In general you need at least three from reliable sources. None of the other sources are good enough. Source 1 is the speakers list for a conference, source 3 appears to be a press release in a blog, source 4 is a twitter account, and source 5 is a youtube video. None of these represent significant coverage in reliable sources, so the fact source 2 exists wouldn't matter, even if we could see it. We do accept relliable sources from behind firewalls, but in this case it doesn't matter because there's only a single source and you need more than that to prove notability. valereee (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Thanks for the reply. I can see how the other references don't provide "the in-depth, reliable, independent coverage about Twomey necessary for there to be an article about him." But there is plenty of "reliable, independent source material about the full bredth and depth of Twomey's life and career" in the article behind the paywall. The reviewer wasn't able to access this, and hence couldn't consider this material. Fair enough. But this had everything to do with why he didn't think it merited an article, as he mentions in his comment. I'm asking if there's any way for me to show @Curb Safe Charmer: the article in another way, so he can then judge for himself whether it constitutes enough of a reference. Or are you saying that, however good the material there might be, one source isn't enough? Is there is a certain number of credible sources (even paywalled sources) at which a subject becomes worthy of a Wikipedia article? If so, do you know what that number is? Siliconemango (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It's likely that one source isn't enough, Siliconemango - or at least where that source is a newspaper article (it would be different if it was a whole book, per WP:SIGCOV). That's why the summary provided by WP:GOLDENRULE specifies that multiple sources are required. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Cordless Larry. Makes sense. Those links are super helpful. I'll hold out until more sources emerge. Siliconemango (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

How to link to a place in a Wiki article with Visual Editor

VisualEditor toolbar. Switch editing tools using the pencil icon next to the blue 'Publish changes' button

Hi All,

Quick Q. Using the visual editor, how do I link to a specific place in a Wikipedia article? For example: List_of_Latin_phrases_(full)#quod_vide

I know how to do this in the basic editor but also cannot find a quick way to switch from Visual to Basic editing.

Best wishes, TomboPC (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, TomboPC - welcome. I can answer your second equation by pointing you to the thick, dark pencil icon in the top right hand corner of either editing window which allows you to switch between Visual Editor and Source Editor when editing any article. (In VE, it's right next to the blue 'Publish Changes' button.) To be frank, I don't know the answer to your first question - an douibt there is one - but would simply switch over to source editor to add more nuanced content, such as links to sub-sections, templates, refnames, interwiki links etc. That said, you will never be able to link to one specific row like 'quod vide' in a list or a table, but you could get closest by linking to the top of the relevant sub-heading. I this case List_of_Latin_phrases_(full)#Q. Does this help?
@TomboPC: Oops - fixing my failed ping. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, TomboPC, as far as I know there is no specific function to add such a section or anchor link in Visual Editor. But you can simply create a standard Wiki-link in VE just for "List_of_Latin_phrases_(full)" with the chain link symbol next to "Cite". Then edit this link again in VE and expand it manually with the "#quod_vide" part. Visual Editor will create a correct and functional Wiki-link to #quod_vide (assuming a section or anchor with this name exists). GermanJoe (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Perfect answers - thank you both very much indeed. CASE CLOSED! TomboPC (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Pitot/Static System Malfunctions

An area that most technicians and maintenance organizations overlook regarding the Static ports on aircraft is the type of covering on the ports during maintenance/painting etc. In many, if not most, cases the ports are covered by masking tape to prevent the holes from being contaminated by paint or other solvents. If using a masking tape or other material that leaves a sticky residue you must assure that the sticky glue residue is completely removed from the surface of the port or contamination could be a problem due to the sticky residue collecting debris on the surface of the ports and will deteriorate the pressure sensing of the ports. This could lead to inaccurate instrument reading and in the case of ADC's affect other automatic aircraft systems such as autopilot etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.1.252.60 (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

No doubt you are right, but The Teahouse is a venue for newer editors to ask questions about the mechanics and approaches of how to edit Wikipedia. As such it is not an appropriate venue for you to record your observations about aircraft maintenence.
If you have a query relating to the above, you might more appropriately enter it on one of our Reference desks. If you think the above merits inclusion in an appropriate article, you could select such an article, go to its Talk page, and suggest this for the consideration of other editors. Please note, however, that material can only be added to an article if it is backed by proper citation to a published Reliable source. An unreferenced synthesis by yourself (or anyone else), however pertinent or correct, would constitute Original research and is not allowed – Wikipedia only summarises (without copying) already published material. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.27.125 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

image into an info box help

Hello Im new and trying to create a page for a car but cant figure out how to get an image to show in the info box. Would appreciate help, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaunWhick01 (talkcontribs) 17:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

JaunWhick01, I've fixed it. In infoboxes you only need the filename --valereee (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
JaunWhick01, not sure whether it actually is already covered here, though: T20 Medium Tank ? --valereee (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This T23 is a seperate project. Thanks for the help — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaunWhick01 (talkcontribs) 18:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Editing tool

Why in mobile browser I can’t find section “more” but in browser version I can find that section? Ни дебил 14:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Not debil welcome back to the Teahouse. Now, in the absence of anybody else replying to you, I'm simply going to suggest that what you see in mobile view is inevitably a cut down version of the full functionality you get in desktop mode on a mobile. The "More" Tab at the top of the viewing screen is not that essential to viewing, so almost certainly was left out for simlper viewing. (I've been editing via a mobile for well over a year now and have never used mobile view. It may be great for reading stuff, but not for editing as far as I'm concerned.) By the way, do please be careful to sign your posts with 'four' keyboard tildes (like this: ~~~~) to ensure your username and hyperlink to it appears properly. I think you typed five, which only added the date, so it was hard to know who had posted this question. Alternatively, you may have set your signature to include a Russian(?) phrase which it is not hyperlinking to your username. This is a requirement, so you might wish to uncheck the box in the signature section at Special:Preferences so that the hyperlink is included. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it OK to cite a YouTube as a reference?

I wish to add a notable case to another wiki entry, and the best reference I can find for it is actually a video of the individual I am referencing, telling the relevant aspect of his life story in a 10 min. YouTube, published by a third party in 2010. Is this a legit source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia (talkcontribs)

@ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia: Please supply the subject name/article title. Please supply the YouTube url. Please sign your posts so we know who is asking the questions. Then we can more effectively answer your question. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia: It's not expressly forbidden, but there are some guidelines to follow. See Wikipedia:Video links#References. One issue is the deep fakes coming out. Also, you should sign your posts using the four tildes ~~~~ so your name appears. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia. In addition to the advice you've been given above, you might also want to take a look at WP:YOUTUBE and WP:COPYLINK. When it comes to YouTube, people often seem to upload content to that they didn't originally create and have no copyright ownership over. So, just because something is uploaded to YouTube doesn't mean it should've been uploaded to YouTube.
Some other things you might want to look at are WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:BLPSPS. Interviews (video or print) are generally considered to be primary sources. This doesn't mean they cannot be cited as a source, but it does mean that they need to be used with care. So much, as explained in Wikipedia:Interviews, depends on who is conducting the interview, whose publishing the interview, the format/setting of the interview, etc. For example, if the interview is simply nothing more that the interviewee simply speaking at length about themselves or their experiences in which the interviewer basically nods in agreement with respect to everything that's said, makes a few casual comments, and asks a few softball questions, then the "interview" amounts to bascially really nothing more than a video public relations piece for the interviewee. On the other hand, if there's some kind of fact checking going on where the interviewer is actually challenging some of things being said, then it might have more a critical commentary feel to it. The reputation of the person/organization conducting the interview is important to consider because reliable sources with a strong reputation for editorial control are probably less likely to alter or change any content than perhaps some unknown person who might see the interview as a chance to gain some sort of notoriety to help further their career or agenda, even if it means editing the content a bit to present it in a certain context. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

are my articles ok?

hello!

i just made Bethan Wright a few minutes ago, and i was just wondering if experienced editors could check over it for faults/anything to be improved. i have a feeling the categories may be wrong but i’m not sure? another of my articles, Sam Retford, also had maaaany categories and i was wondering if it’s too much? any help on them would be much appreciated! – DarkGlow (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Judging off of other WP:BLP's, the amount of categories are fine. Fine article – lacks text but well sourced (although, no reference in Bethan Wright#Modelling) and NPOV. --Biscuit-in-Chief (TalkContribs) 16:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
However: The ref to her birthday is not reliable. From where do you know she was born in 1996? And how do you know that the guy on Twitter published it on her birthday? --Biscuit-in-Chief (TalkContribs) 16:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
the twitter source was posted by her co-star who lives in the UK, so the timezones and everything are correct. she also responded to several birthday tweets on that day so i’m taking it as a common sense source if that makes sense. thanks for checking it out! – DarkGlow (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I understand the temptation; unfortunately, you are not allowed to do this. WP:SYNTH states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. It's incredibly annoying, yes, but it's all a part of the endless quest to making Wikipedia as reliable as possible. --Biscuit-in-Chief (TalkContribs) 17:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi DarkGlow. Some other things to considered here are WP:DOB, WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB. Tweets, Facebook posts, etc. are for the most part considered to be self-pubished, user-generated content which are generally considered to have questionable reliability. An actress tweeting about herself and saying "Today is my birthday" might be considered OK to cite in some contexts (though people do occassionally lie about their age or dob for personal and professional reasons), but generally tweets about other people (no matter how benign they seem) are not usually considered OK. An official website listing her birthday is probably OK (again to a certain degree), but it would be better to find secondary reliable sources which corroborate her dob and cite those as well. FWIW, it's OK for a BLP to not have the subject's dob listed, especially when it's information which cannot be supported by a citation to a reliable source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Person Messed With 2019 India-Pakistan Standoff Page

Help! Someone messed with the link to 'Part of the indo-pakistani conflicts' and when you hover over it shows a nude man. This is on the 2019 India-Pakistan standoff page.

Hover over the link to the Indo-Pakistani conflicts page and you'll see what I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.123.150.46 (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for pointing this out, apparently the vandalism has already been removed by another editor. If you still see the vandalized version, please try to refresh your local browser cache or purge the article in question. GermanJoe (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
It's still there. Second line of infobox on 2019 India–Pakistan standoff. Trying to figure out the source. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
One target was Template:Campaignbox Indo-Pakistani Wars (already fixed and protected), if that helps with the search. GermanJoe (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Also second line of infobox in 2011_India–Pakistan_border_skirmish TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Also 2011 border skirmishes in events and conflicts section of Template:Indo-Pakistani_relations TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
You can see the effect by mouseovering 2011_India–Pakistan_border_skirmish. I have no idea where this would be coming from. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Timtempleton and GermanJoe: Having checked and mouseover-ed every links at {{Kashmir conflict}}, {{Indo-Pakistani relations}}, {{Military of India}} and {{Military of Pakistan}}, I've now found this issue with only the following pages.

I'm surprised that I can't find any common denominator or odd and recently inserted image links, so think this needs reporting asap to WP:VPT. Do one of you want to do it, or shall I? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: That's a great idea - go ahead. Thanks for hunting these all down - very odd. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, will do. I'm fascinated, but I didn't want to steal your thunder. And a big thanks to the IP for reporting this. It's really appreciated. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
UPDATE:  Done Issue now reported over at WP:VPT. Watch that space! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Apparently now fixed. I'm not sure what the issue was but the image is gone on the mouseovers. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Am I vandalising?

Begoon (talk · contribs) reverted all my work from the past few days on James Arthur and left a message on my talk page. He also removed my thread on his talk page with no explanation. Now, I'm no expert Wikipedian, but I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to do this unless it's highly offensive content or copyvio. I'm geniunely confused – first he removed some stuff I'd put up about James Arthur's pets, fair enough (although he just put the rather confusing explanation er, yeah - no, which pissed me off more than it should've), and then reverted all the other stuff I've spent hours on that seems pretty encyclopedic to me. Now I'm afraid of making a new thread on his talk page due to the message he left on mine. --Biscuit-in-Chief (TalkContribs) 15:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

What you added to that article was badly sourced gossip on a WP:BLP. Your account has a history of trolling and sockpuppetry. What has changed that means we should trust you when your edits appear to fit the same pattern? -- Begoon 15:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I took the information from a book written by the man the article is about. Could you clarify what you mean by badly sourced gossip, then?
I've spent possibly hundreds of hours in total learning about (and editing) Wikipdia since I vandalised (and I regret that I did, a lot), both on dawiki and enwiki, and also a bit on nowiki. I also spent hours gathering the information I then provided in his article. --Biscuit-in-Chief (TalkContribs) 15:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
And what has changed? Well, I love Wikipedia and I spend many hours a day on it, up to about 8-9 hours even.--Biscuit-in-Chief (TalkContribs) 15:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
"Eye injury" and "Foster care" seemed the most problematic. That's like if you went to any other celebrity and then added a section called "Paper cuts" and wrote about each paper cut they received throughout their livelihood. StaringAtTheStars (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The problem with "eye injury" I see now. However, that's an honest mistake and a lack of encyclopedic understanding, not a bad faith edit. How would it be, is my question – why would I spend hours on researching about stuff I knew wasn't for Wikipedia? Please, see WP:FAITH2#What "Bad Faith" Is NOT. And about the foster care part: Stuff about him being in foster care was there before I started editing. If you're only referring to the "Arthur punched a boy in the face part", I felt it was encyclopedic to explain why he left foster care. I guess I'm wrong. But again, Begoon threatened me with blocking me due to this, which I find unfair. I might have written some unencyclopedic stuff, but removing my thread without any explanation is, I'm pretty sure, against Wikipedia's rules. Again, assume good faith. --Biscuit-in-Chief (TalkContribs) 16:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, other than some specific types of warnings, editors are free to delete whatever they want from their own Talk pages. Some prefer to archive, but not required. AND, the place to take up a dispute about article content is on the Talk page of the article. You could describe what you want to add back to the article and invite Begoon to discuss. David notMD (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Adjustment to time framing of nuclear red level event

I am requesting a change to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Calhoun_Nuclear_Generating_Station section "2011 flood and cold shutdown" paragraph 2. The requested revision is to change "The fire impacted pumping of coolant water through the spent fuel pool. Cooling was interrupted for 90 minutes while the estimated time for the pool to reach boiling temperature was over 88 hours.[28] In response,"

To:

The fire impacted pumping of coolant water through the spent fuel pool. Cooling was interrupted for 1.5 hours while the estimated time for the pool to reach boiling temperature was over 88 hours.[28] In response,"

The reason I ask for this revision is because to the general onlooker, this event might have seemed more dangerous to the public than what is stated. The original indicated 90 minutes and the margin to failure is 88 hours. Your normal person is going to say well... 90 is greater than 88 so could something have happened? Then they read ahead and see it was 88 hours not minutes, but unfortunately this sentence has the word "hour" appear on the next line which may create an unneeded panic for the nuclear industry and how it approaches nuclear safety.

I understand if this is a mundane request, but I just wanted to reach out to clear the name of nuclear as a professional myself in this field and that Fort Calhoun was a successful use of our FLEX systems even just after the Fukasmima flooding and nuclear event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.168.25.131 (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done I made it an hour and a half rather than 1.5 hours, which was awkward phrasing. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Trying to remove a duplicate reference

I am trying to change a citation to link to the proper reference. ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia: It will be easier for others to help you, if you can be a little more specific. Which article are you trying to edit and which citation are you trying to change? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia: Is the article in question Spasmodic dysphonia? I can see you had a battle with the reference in Thyroplasty, but it looks like you worked that out - is there still a problem we can help with? --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey there!

Hi guys I’m trying to create a page but When I search it on google I can’t see anything what’s the matter..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nic korha (talkcontribs) 01:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nic korha. The only edits made by your account so far are to this Teahouse page and your user page. Looking at your userpage, it appears that you might be misunderstanding a few things about Wikipedia. A user page is a place where you can briefly introduce yourself and your Wikipedia activities to other Wikipedia editors; it's not a place to try an create an online profile about yourself or a place to try and write a Wikipedia article about yourself. Generally, only subjects deemed to be Wikipedia notable are considered OK to write articles about and then it's preferred that those doing the writing be unconnected to the subject matter as much as possible. So, before you continue on with your attempts, you might want to carefully read through Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Law of unintended consequences, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. These pages (the names in blue) will explain some things about Wikipedia which you might not know, and which might point out how trying to write about yourself is not always a great idea. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
You attempted to create an article about your self at your User page (wrong idea, and tagged for Speedy deletion), and recently put the identical content in your Sandbox. The latter is the right type of place for a work in progress - it exists in Wikipedia - but does not appear through Google or other search engines. As Marchjuly mentioned, you may not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. And autobiography is frowned upon. David notMD (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse

Thank you for inviting me to the Teahouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiritofAccuracy (talkcontribs) 11:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, SpiritofAccuracy. If you ever have any questions as you start out learning how best to contribute here, just pop back and ask for guidance. I'll leave a few helpful links on your talk page. A great place to start is by taking our interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure. There are 15 different badges to collect as you learn the basics of how things work around here. We do ask everyone to 'sign' their posts on talk pages, which you do by simply typing four keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~) right at the very end of the last sentence in your posts. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

wikipedia with gadgets / explorables / interactive content

Reuleaux triangle based film advance mechanism in the Soviet Luch-28 mm film projector

I don't know the best place to ask this question, but I wanted to know is interactive content on wikipedia not allowed? if it is not, what is the policy for linking such content? I would believe that explorables would greatly aid in understanding explanations in math and physics. If they are not ok in wikipedia, then would WikiBooks or wikiversity a good place for them? --My Sistemx (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Sistemx. Welcome back to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. Things have not changed much in that regard over the years, and we still discourage excessive animation on our pages. See WP:IUP#ANIM. I'm honestly not sure on policy in linking to external animations, but External Links should only be included if they add genuine value to an article, provide further content that can't be included on a page, and should not be promotional, nor pointlessly repeating what has been covered in an article and, like all content linked to from a page, should be reliable and safe to view. Not all of the world's Wikipedia viewers are sitting in a comfy room with a super-whizzo computer connected to high-speed broadband connection. If this encyclopaedia's purpose is to make knowledge and information available to everyone, it's important our pages can be viewed by anyone, anywhere, and on simple devices. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think big animations within articles wouldn't be appropriate. That said, there are quite a lot of animations already on Wikimedia Commons - have you looked for them?. If not, try c:Category:Animations of physics or its parent: c:Category:Animations by subject? Hope this helps answer your question. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Doubts in the creation and publication of a biography.

Good afternoon.

Great day for all

Excuse. A few days ago I started reading about Wikipedia because I have a job that I would like to create here in this vast encyclopedia, but when I try I do not succeed. I want to create the biography of a Model Mozambique more following the rules of Wikipedia is not possible, I would ask for your help to carry out this task. He is a public figure known and admirable because he has struggled to innovate the fashion world in Mozambique. so I'd like people to find some good information about it in this encyclopedia. when I try to insert the information that I have about it does not accept, I follow all rules to be able to create an article, I make the citations from where can be found this information of sites that are genuine. Please if anyone can help me, I appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristo J. Toqueleque (talkcontribs) 11:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Please read the advice against creating an autobiography. The content of your user page was inappropriate and has been nominated for speedy deletion. Your sandbox draft is presumably written in Portuguese, and doesn't belong on the English Wikipedia. If the subject satisfies the criteria for inclusion in the Portuguese Wikipedia, you will find that Wikipedia at pt:. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Cristo J. Toqueleque: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would note that you seem to be writing about yourself. I'm glad you are doing good things for the fashion industry in your country, but you should not be the one to write about yourself on Wikipedia. You might misunderstand what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not social media like Facebook to tell the world about yourself. This is an encyclopedia, where we are only interested in what third parties state about you in independent reliable sources. We are not interested in what you want to say about yourself. Further, autobiographies, or writing about yourself, is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. This is because people naturally write favorably about themselves. If you are written about in independent, third party sources, eventually someone will take note of you and write about you. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media.
Also please understand that a Wikipedia article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. Please read this page for more information.
I would also note that you wrote in Portuguese; this is the English Wikipedia and contributions need to be in English. There is a Portuguese Wikipedia: Portuguese Wikipedia 331dot (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph Thank you very much for your answer. Apologize for the confusion in the languages, to say that I first wrote the biography in Portuguese with another quota after I gave it to my account, I know that this seems strange to me. this biography is not mine and a Mozambican Model. I understand that it is against the rules of Wikipedia to create matters of personal interest. Taking advantage of the occasion how can I ask to create a biography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristo J. Toqueleque (talkcontribs) 12:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cristo J. Toqueleque: If you are not Cristo Toqueleque, you cannot use his name as your username. You will need to change your username. You may do so at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. What is your connection to him? 331dot (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I now see that you can't create an article on the Portuguese Wikipedia as your account there has been indefinitely blocked. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Cristo J. Toqueleque: As I see it, your sandbox draft is clearly about yourself, and uses a photo of you taken by your cousin in your house. It is not in English; it contains only trivial detailed personal information that only you would know about yourself, and is purely and simply your own personal profile. You say nothing that suggests any Notability. As such it has no place here. Please delete all the content before an administrator deletes it all for you. We are not a free webhosting service for you to create a biographical page. If you can supply one reference to an independent source that suggests Cristo J. Toqüéque is a notable person, and has been written about in books, journals or newspapers, we might view things differently. Can you do that? If not, please blank the page immediately. Having done that, if you would like to tell us the name of the person you DO want to write an article about, we might then be able to guide you. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

wiki signup

Hello, I am running a small meet-up and several of my participants are having difficulty signing up for an account? Some are saying that there is a 3 month backlog. Is there anyway to speed up this process? In the past my user-rights have been modified to create accounts at larger meet-ups but bcs this was a small event and everyone tried to sign up beforehand I didn't think it would be a problem. hmmmm. --Ella Dawn 13:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Elladeer welcome. It's great to have you here at the Teahouse. Are you at the event right now? If not, event organisers can be granted temporary creation rights in advance of a scheduled event. I've done this when I've participated at Editathons. We now have a new permission called Wikipedia:Event coordinator which will allow you to apply for the right to create more than the maximum six accounts per day. From experience, it is always much better to get participants to create their own personal account on their own internet connection before they attend - it saves using up valuable time at the event. There is no 'backlog' for account creation - any user may create an account for themselves at any time, provided they aren't all trying to do so from one IP address. They simply need to go to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CreateAccount So I've no idea where the 3 month backlog rumour came from.
If you are at the event right now, I'm not sure how best to help, except to say go over this minute to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Event coordinator and enter your reason for needing that permission. In extremis, you could then go to Adminstrator Noticeboard and plead for any willing admin to check and grant your request, explaining that you're actually in the middle of an editathon event today, and need 'eyes on' your request.
If the event is later in, can I make two further suggestions to help the event go well. Firstly, get a big blackboard, or signing-in book, and ask every attendee to write down their username so that after the event you know precisely who was active, and you can then go back and offer support and encouragement later, if necessary. And at my last IWD event, I handed out a double sided A4 sheet to every attendee. This gives them something solid to take away which contains useful links and guidance on getting help, and so on. You can find the content at User:Nick Moyes/editathon/handout1. Hope some of this might be of assistance. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Visual editing

Can I use visual editing to add infobox or tables because using source code is a bit hard? Not debil (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, Not debil. Yes, you can insert both with VE. Simple tables are very easy to insert and to edit. It's also easy to remove or add new columns and rows. See Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User_guide#Editing_tables.
But adding infoboxes in VE, I'd avoid like the plague. It's simply too clunky to insert the template and then to edit in all the fields you need. Infoboxes are 'templates' so you'd need to use the Insert - Template tool. See Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User_guide#Editing_templates. My suggestion would be to find a very similar article to the one you're working on, copy the infobox over in source editor, and edit data back in to the relevant fields. Each infobox (and there are dozens an dozens of them) have their own documentation to explain how the fields are used. Don't be tempted to add your own fields, as these will be flagged up as invalid, and won't display). Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

wikipidea does not create article on ameer shirolkar

ameer shirolkar is an famous internet celebrity , knows 17 languages, popularly known as google genius of india. awarded padma shri and maharashtra ratna in 2015, particpated in various news debate. https://www.google.com/search?q=ameer+shirolkar&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJtNGLrP_gAhXm63MBHfQaBN0Q_AUIDigB&biw=1280&bih=689 search AMEER SHIROLKAR on google search .. ameer shirolkar name is everywhere around internet with 3 million followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameershirolkar (talkcontribs) 14:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  1. @Ameershirolkar: I'm very sorry to say that, but not everywhere – I haven't seen any mention about him yet. Anyway, if you think he should be described in Wikipedia, please check WP:N for general notability guidelines (notability in a strict, Wikipedia sense) and WP:NBIO for guideleines specific for biographies. --CiaPan (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. @Ameershirolkar: The title you gave above makes me wonder: aren't you by accident confusing Wikipidea with Wikipedia? --CiaPan (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. @Ameershirolkar: Your account name suggests you are the person, whose biography you propose. If that's the case, you are strongly discouraged from writing and publishing your own biography here – let others do that. Please see the relevant guidelines at Wikipedia:Autobiography.
    On the other hand, if you're e.g. his relative or fan, you should not use the username suggesting you're actually him. If this is the case, please see Wikipedia:Username policy with its WP:MISLEADNAME section for reasons, and the WP:UNC section for guidelines on changing a username. --CiaPan (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Help with dealing with "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." flag

Hey, the "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." flag is on the page of the band i'm working with as i see it's a problem for the community and i will stop updating their page. can someone help with getting the flag down? thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lola_Marsh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anovamusic2013 (talkcontribs) 11:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

OP blocked for WP:CORPNAME. Also I suspect undisclosed WP:PAID editing. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)