Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 933

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 930 Archive 931 Archive 932 Archive 933 Archive 934 Archive 935 Archive 940

Uploading photo

I am trying to upload a photo that was already uploaded before but it keeps saying that the photo already exists. What should i do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpml2019 (talkcontribs) 10:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dpml2019, welcome to the Teahouse. commons:Special:ListFiles/Dpml2019 shows two uploads: commons:File:Οικογένεια Πατέρα.jpg and commons:File:Οικογένεια Διαμαντή Ι. Πατέρα.jpg. What are you trying to do? The second image is affected by a bug which can cut off a file at 5 MB if it's uploaded from a toolbar at another wiki. Use the link "Upload a new version of this file" at commons:File:Οικογένεια Διαμαντή Ι. Πατέρα.jpg#filehistory if you want to upload the full version with that title. If this gives the problem you mention and you don't like the name of the first upload then we can help you request a rename. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Did I make my first userbox right?

Terrier mixed-breed dog.jpgThis user is Chinese and gets really offended when asked if they eat dog meat. (They don't.)

Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 11:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks  good to me ~~ JJBullet 11:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 11:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah -good work, Woshiyiweizhongguoren. A very minor point would be to observe that you say "this user" and then say "we don't". Do you mean collectively all Chinese people, or just yourself, or are there more than one person operating your account (which I'm sure there isn't)? How about: "This user is Chinese and gets offended when asked if they eat dog meat. (They don't.)" Just a thought - not a criticism. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
What Nick said and, maybe change it so it lines with the text?? ~~ JJBullet 12:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Struggling to verify content

Good Day I'm trying to create a company page however I keep running into issues around verifiable content. The company's name is Prudential Investment Managers in South Africa, which forms part of the broader Prudential plc group. the company has many references in the media in South Africa however none of which Wikipedia seems to accept as being verifiable. Please could you advise on a course of action to have our Wikipedia page entry approved? Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon at Prudential (talkcontribs) 12:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Before you go any further, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID, both of which I suspect apply to you. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Brandon at Prudential: The problem is less about verifiability - I think you can ignore that - it's actually Notability that's the real issue here. None of your references are anything other than insider sources showing that the company exists. That's not in dispute, but whether or not the world has taken sufficient notice to have three or four independent, non-involved sources write about Draft:Prudential Investment Managers in depth is definitely under question. 'Notability' is the criterion we use to determine whether a page on a topic here is justified. My observation would be that perhaps a single line about Draft:Prudential Investment Managers within the Prudential plc page might be acceptable if you can demonstrate the strong link. (I should also declare a COI here - in that my grandfather worked for the Prudential in London just after the first World War!) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Formatting question

I created a page on George L. Howe, an O.S.S. operative in World War II -- at A notice soon appeared stating that the article should be divided into sections, so I I did that. But the notice has not gone away. Have I overlooked doing something else in formatting the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhugins (talkcontribs) 13:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rhugins, welcome to the Teahouse. You formatted it correctly. Such notices are added and removed manually. An editor has now removed {{sections}}.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


Why does every edit I do gets deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosie112233 (talkcontribs) 15:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The only edits you have made to Wikipedia articles have been to add "Emma" to an article. Was there some reason for this, or was it just vandalism? Why not try some sensible constructive edits? Dbfirs 16:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Eton Shirts on Wikipedia


We (Global Swedish shirt brand Eton Shirts) would like to add an english version about the history of Eton Shirts from the founding in 1928 to today. We are already present on the Swedish Wikipedia but since our biggest market is outside Scandinavia (mainly North America but also Continental Europe) it would be nice with an english version as well. We do not want to publish anything without running it with the Wikipedia community first and therefore kindly ask if someone could advise us how to move forward? If this is not the right place to ask this question, please advise us on that as well. We already have a text proposal completed with sources but like stated above, we would like to run everything we have with the Wikipedia community first. Swe jon (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI, WP:PAID and WP:OWN. If other editors consider your company WP:NOTABLE then a page may be created. You should not edit this page directly, instead make requests on its talk page. Please also ensure that acccounts are for personal use only, not shared amongst employees. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Martin, thanks for your quick reply. I have read the links and can only agree, I am for sure in a "conflict of interest-situation", that is why I'm posting my question here. As of today, there is several articles about Eton but no one about the company Eton Shirts. Since the page does not exist today there is not really a talk page where to make edits. If I would like to propose a text about Eton Shirts (mainly translated from the Swedish Wikipedia-site) without publicing it, where would I best do that? As stated above, I do not want to publish anything, but more to propose to someone else to do it if the community finds the text, sources and images interesting for Wikipedia as a whole. And yes, this account is only used by me. Swe jon (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Swe jon. Since there's no article about the company yet, I don't think there would be a problem if you created a first draft of the article yourself, using the Articles for Creation process. I do recommend that you first make sure your COI and PAID status is disclosed. For that, you can use your user page at User:Swe jon and/or the talk page of the Draft you're creating. Also, if you're translating from the Swedish Wikipedia (or any other language's Wikipedia), you must attribute the material appropriately, see WP:TFOLWP. rchard2scout (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Richard. That's certainly the best way forward for Swe jon. The article remains in draft namespace until someone else has had a chance to consider WP:UNDUE and WP:PROMO. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I've added a collection of useful links to the user's talk page. shoy (reactions) 16:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

How is this spam?

Hello. I need help with [1] and [2] because those messages apparently are spam. Is that true? You may also look at the behaviour of that user prior to that on the users' talk page. This user is me, but under a different IP because it changed a few times since those messages were posted. (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like spam to me. Try editing something else a bit more constructively. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 11:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
This was a while ago and you haven't explained to me why. Is it spam because the edits were bad faith in the same way good faith edits, for that reason aren't vandalism? (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
You're repeating the same message again, even after he reverted it. Do you really think he wants to hear it? Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 11:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think he wants to hear it. Also those links I think I posted them for the 1st time at that time. That edit was made in good faith. (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
IP editor: If you'd kept on reposting the same deleted messages on my talk page time and time again- especially after you'd just come out of a block for disruptive editing - I'd be pretty irritated and would regard those re-posts as spamming and edit warring. And I didn't even get as far back as to the original reason for your multiple repetitive identical posts on CaradhrasAiguo's talk page. Just stop please - it's bloomin' disruptive. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
This IP user came to me on my user talk page and asked why his/her message was interpreted and regarded as "spam" (see permalink to discussion and my responses). I obviously don't have any context as to the article or the disruption, so I responded with some limited and careful input and advice. The user's request for help regarding why his/her message was spam (as well as the message itself) seemed good faith to me, but there's obviously more to this story than I've bothered to look into given the responses I'm seeing above. Just adding this note to the discussion for the record. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


Updating company page


I am the digital manager for Maverik Lacrosse.

I am trying to update this page to show the following:

proposed article content hidden
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Maverik Lacrosse is a manufacturer of lacrosse equipment and apparel, based in Exeter, NH. The company was founded by professional lacrosse player John Gagliardi in 2005.[1] With input from the game’s top players, Maverik Lacrosse is on a tireless mission to offer innovative, high performance product that helps you play your best.

The original Maverik team included John Gagliardi, Kyle Sweeney, Drew Adams, Billy Bitter, Mike Springer, Johnny Christmas, JoJo Marasco, Peet Poillon, Chris Bocklet, Chris Eck, Kip Turner, and Joe Cinosky. Today, the team is composed of Jordan Wolf, Joey Sankey, Joe Walters, Nick Mariano, CJ Costabile, and Brian Karalunas.

Maverik athlete, Jordan Wolf, showing us his stick of choice -- the Optik 2.0 on a Hyperlite Shaft.

Maverik Lacrosse is a leading lacrosse manufacturer of heads, shafts, complete sticks, a complete line of protective gear, and accessories. With a best in class design team & input from the games top players, Maverik Lacrosse creates, tests and develops market-leading products, so athletes at all levels can play their best. As the leading provider of product across the NCAA, Maverik prides itself as being “powered by the player.” For more information, please visit or join the conversation on Instagram @maveriklacrosse (men’s) and @maverikwlx (women’s).

Some of their premier products include their Rome line of protection, along with the #1 selling custom glove in the industry, the M4. Maverik prides itself on having a great shaft line, including the carbon fiber Hyperlite, Apollo, Union, and A1 shafts. Their top selling heads include the Optik 2.0 and Kinetik for the offensive minded players. Maverik not only creates lacrosse heads for different positions, but rather by style of play, with the Havok and Tank for those that play on the defensive side of the ball. Check out the Maverik HeadFinder App to find the perfect head for your style of play.

On June 3, 2010, it was announced that Maverik Lacrosse was acquired by Private Equity group Kohlberg & Co. for an undisclosed sum. Kohlberg & Co. at that time, was the parent company of Bauer Sports. In June of 2012, then Bauer Performance Sports acquired Cascade Lacrosse to form Cascade Maverik Lacrosse, LLC. Based in Liverpool, NY since 1986, Cascade Lacrosse is the #1 manufacturer of lacrosse head protection for male and female athletes at all levels of the sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybenz4 (talkcontribs) 13:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


@Billybenz4: the text you propose does not belong in an encyclopedia article. Various people have given you advice on your talk page and at the Help desk - please take a moment to look into that. Wikipedia is not a place to promote companies or products, and Wikipedia articles should not be based on what a company has to say about itself. It might sound harsh, but it's simply not what Wikipedia is for. --bonadea contributions talk 18:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Article about myself

Is it possible to write an article about myself? I am an American singer/songwriter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADillon1 (talkcontribs) 17:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@ADillon1: It is strongly discouraged. Read WP:AUTO for guidance. RudolfRed (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@ADillon1: The question is, can you forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent reliable sources? Technically, it is possible for someone to do this, but it is rare. Also, do you meet the notability guidelines for musicians/bands written at WP:BAND? If you truly meet the relevant guidelines, someone will eventually write an article about you. Keep in mind that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. Anything that appears in an independent reliable source about you is fair game for inclusion in an article about you, be it good or bad. 331dot (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Funniest Wikipedia policies

Top 8 funniest Wikipedia policies:

Happy April Fools Day! Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 18:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Archiving sections on talk page

Hello, I wanted to archive some of the sections on my talk page. Could you kindly direct me to how I can do this manually? Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: This should help. Help:Archiving_a_talk_page TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you TimTempleton (talk) (cont).LorriBrown (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Declined article


I submitted this page (, and it got rejected for not passing the NCORP criteria. I'm wondering how I could improve that, because the sources used (I think) are independent and reliable. In addition, the person reviewing said it was "somewhat promotional". But in comparison to another company in the same industry ( I can't really tell where I'm promotional.

Thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blixoo (talkcontribs) 08:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The terms "known for" and "solutions" strike me as somewhat promotional: it might be better to substitute more neutral terms like "makes" and "products" (or similar).
However, the main objection by the reviewer is not that the sources used are not independent and reliable, it's that their content doesn't support the subject's notability, which requires several (say, 3 or more) sources which devote at least several paragraphs to the subject – passing mentions, inclusions in lists and directories, etc., aren't sufficient. Comparison with other similar articles doesn't help because of Wikipedia:Other stuff – it may be that those articles are also inadequate. (The poster formerly known as} (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The really serious problem is that Pradeo simply does not meet our notability criteria. See WP:NCORP. No amount of attempts at making it less promotional are going to fix that. I would like to point something out to you though: Something you might not see as promotional, but I do, is for example: In 2013, the analysis engine "Pradeo Security" was released. All Pradeo's solutions are based on this technology. Since you haven't explained what an analysis engine is, and we don't have an article about analysis engines, it is just meaningless marketing speak. After reading this, nobody could possibly have gained a better understanding of what technology is used in the company's products, why it is different from its competitors or why anyone should care. We're building an encyclopedia, not a marketing tool. Vexations (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Issue with graph in Palma de Mallorca Airport


It looks like their is an issue with the graph of Palma de Mallorca for passengers. If somebody could let me know that would be great.

What is the problem with the graph at Palma_de_Mallorca_Airport ? RudolfRed (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Nevermind, it looks like when you are on mobile version it doesn’t appear but when you go to the desktop version it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsjaclybou (talkcontribs) 21:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyright vs public domain

I'm looking to create articles of notable people of Quebec's founding and first settlers. The problem is there are many bios relating to these people but only a few on Wikipedia. Many of these people coexisted together or around the same time and are connected through history with prominent people of the distant past and present.

   The issue I am having is creating a profile that isn't similar to others when they are the same person. 

All the profiles you find have the same original sources, so how do I create something that isn't going to have the same information? And as you would expect they all are very much alike. Jlastowski (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jlastowski: I'm a little confused by your question. Are you saying you can't write a unique article about one of Quebec's founders since their background is the same as the other founders? If anyone did something notable and there's sufficient coverage, regardless of how similar their backgrounds are, they might warrant an article. I'd take a look at what's already there in the Quebec history section. If there's not enough for an entire article, a particular person who did something notable for Quebec could be mentioned there. Another option is to bring this up on the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board with others more familiar with Quebec. Good luck. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I was struggling with the processes of creating a biography of a person without it sounding like what others have copyrighted due to the sources for the information are the same. I like you suggestions for Quebec history section and Canadian Wikipedians' notice boardJlastowski (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jlastowski: Could you be a little clearer in your question, please? I don't understand what you mean by "profile". We have articles on many topics and people, both living and dead. We might call these biographies, certainly not "profiles". Users like you and me don't have "profiles" either - we have user pages containing a small amount of information about ourselves and our editing interests. I see you had a draft page speedily deleted as being a copyright infringement from the Dictionary of Canadian Biography (DCB). Whilst their listing in the DCB no doubt makes them notable as we define it, and thus worthy of an article here, there is no justification for repeating content. You should firstly consider summarising just a few of the salient points about that person in your own words and then also looking online or in reference libraries for other sources to bring together. In my experience, it's quite possible to find other books and journals that expand upon the expert entries in these national biographies - you just have to put the effort in, and that's half the fun of creating articles here. It's OK to link to a page in the DCB, but not to copy/paste chunks of it straight into Wikipedia. Does that answer your question? Nick Moyes (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
You are correct, I was using Profile in place of biographies. I will use highlights of the Bio and link to the page as well as others.Jlastowski (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jlastowski: That sounds perfect. If you do it via Articles for Creation you'll get helpful feedback, but I suspect they should go through speedily. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Squidward Nose

How long does it take this article to appear on the Google Knowledge panel after it has been reviewed? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: That is completely up to Google. RudolfRed (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

An editor should never get annoyed when somebody else reverts vandalism before they do!

I go on recent changes patrol and my Watchlist often to seek vandalism. I get mildly to moderately annoyed when someone gets to vandalism I planned to revert first. All I just want to do is make Wikipedia better. How can I revert vandalism faster? I don’t have tools to assist me. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 19:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@LPS and MLP Fan: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to make it better. Check out WP:CVUA to learn how to fight vandalism. Many vandalism edits are found by User:ClueBot_NG, which is faster than most of us will ever be. RudolfRed (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @LPS and MLP Fan: I'm sure you mean "frustrated" rather than "annoyed"? How can you be annoyed when someone else has done a good job? The really speedy editors tend to use Huggle, as far as I can see. I use WP:TWINKLE to monitor, revert and warn users about bad faith editing, or to report them to WP:AIV. If I'm monitoring Recent Changes for bad faith edits, and find someone like Shellwood (who deserves an honourable Teahouse mention for his/her efforts) is getting in before me, I actually feel relaxed and pleased that someone else is actively checking the brand new edits at the top of the list. They're the ones dealing with the screaming hordes as they charge through the dark gates of Mordor onto the innocent green fields of Wikipedialand. So then I simply move down the list of recent changes, looking for the telltale signs of bad faith edits that missed the first swing of their ant-vandal axes, and check those out instead. It's those that are lower down that are liable to stay unchallenged unless you investigate them. Clues to look for are edits that contain any of the following
  • 'School' in the title (always worth doing a Ctrl-F on the word School and working through them all)
  • Use of phrases like "I fixed it" "Made it better" - it surprising how many people think we'll be fooled by that!
  • Use of "fixing typo" followed by tens or hundreds of bytes difference, plus or minus.
  • any use of the word "typo" in an edit summary
  • no edit summary
  • Unexplained removal of content, or big changes with an inadequate-sounding edit summary
  • Edits with (0) bytes change - always suspicious.
  • Any popular topic covered in school classes, especially chemistry and history.
  • Any article about a species (kids love to mess around with those for some reason)
  • Edits highlighted by ORES as especially likely to be bad-faith edits.
So don't get annoyed with the folks who take the easy option at the head of the list -go get stuck in and root out vandalism that slips past these guys. Let the vandals get annoyed with you instead - then you know you're really doing a good job! Regards from Hobbiton, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes:, Well, when I find out an editor got vandalism first, I would usually thank them. Also, thanks for giving me tips to find more vandalism. Also, the photo is funny. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 23:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Viewing past DYKs

Prompted by Thegooduser's question above - is there a way I can see what was featured on the front page's "Did You Know" section yesterday? I missed the April Fools material, and I hate to miss out... --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Here: RudolfRed (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@RudolfRed: - brilliant! Thank you. Smile.gif --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Quotebox Addition

Nick Moyes If I want to add a quotebox to an article and the length of the quote is just too long (nearly a paragraph), then what can I do? Also, tell me if it is even legal or not to add as much long quotes and if I can find some kind of substitute for this. From a universal servant Levent Heitmeier (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Levent Heitmeier. I'm afraid your attempt to ping me didn't work as you forgot to include my username in your original post which you signed. You then came back (at least I assume it was you?) as an IP and added it later. Users only receive notification if both their user name and the person's signature are included in the same original post. Adding it afterwards without re-signing it simply wont work. See WP:PING.
To answer your question, see Wikipedia:Quotations for general guidance and WP:LONGQUOTES for matters concerning longer ones. Obviously it depends upon the relevance or importance of the quotation, but articles shouldn't be stuffed full of quotes, or consist of one big one. (I'm sure there are some notable exceptions someone can point out.) Obviously, supplying a link to the fuller quote is one option, as is adding it as a footnote, but must always be careful not to breach copyright simply by placing someone's words as a quotation. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Nick Moyes Ah thanks! I'll find a substitute because even if those long quotes does not violate any rules, they aggravate the articles appearance in comparison to short ones. You just work too much here, it may sound a bit strange to you but I think you should try to limit your editing time here because there are more things to do in life than this and if you keep working here so often, then you can miss some really good things to do in life. You have achieved everything here so why not go and travel around the world. It is really bad for a Wikipedian to say it, but most peoples don't really care what is written here. They just visit us to see some very minute information. I said this because I think you are nearly 40-50 yrs in age. Give a thought about it. From a universal servant Levent Heitmeier (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Need feedback on this article I'm cleaning up.

Hello! I am currently cleaning up the article Road signs in the United States and I have just finished the R1-Series. I did remove some state signs due to difficulty getting them to fit in more smoothly alongside with having difficulty verifying them. Though I think I made the right choice, I would like some feedback on this because I am also new, so I may be in the wrong. Alongside with that, how exactly would I cite a pdf file? Would I use the website I got it off of or? Any feedback would assist me greatly in cleaning up the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boilermakerjustin (talkcontribs) 06:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  • @Boilermakerjustin: If the PDF you are citing is available on the web, I would use the {{cite web}} template. It has a number of different parameters available at Template:Cite web. At its most basic, you would do something along the lines of <ref>{{cite web|url=url_to_pdf.pdf|title=Title of Document|access-date=2 April 2019}}</ref>. Thanks for improving Wikipedia! SportingFlyer T·C 06:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Editing an existing Wikipedia

Hi, I am new to wikipedia and I wanted to edit an existing page on my grand Mother, Marcelle Lagesse, a Mauritian writer and I wanted to know if I can write about her without having written sources? I have kept all her archives and photographs and most of her notes on her life most of which have never been published before.


Pascal Lagesse Lagessepascal (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Lagessepascal: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is only interested in what published independent reliable sources state about article subjects. Personal writings would not be acceptable, nor is information based on personal knowledge, though photos might be if properly licensed. See WP:UPIMAGE for information on that. 331dot (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hi, Lagessepascal and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, private papers cannot be used for Wikipedia references. Perhaps you could publish an article about your grandmother elsewhere, but without any published sources it is difficult to justify putting personal knowledge into the article. Perhaps you could discuss the material you wish to add by posting it on the talk page of the article. Dbfirs 06:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Can I get someone from Wikipedia to make my article acceptable... I do not have a clue what I am violating

Extended content

C. J. Ford used to believe that if police apprehended someone it was because they had broken the law. That is, until one day, while driving through Torrance, an officer going in the opposite direction, did a u-turn and pulled him over. The office claimed that he pulled Ford over because of the tint on Ford’s windows. Ford told the officer that he bought the car like that, however he would make the appropriate corrections to a fix it ticket that he assumed the officer was going to write, but the officer pursued a different aspect of the detention other then a mire “fix it ticket”. The officer asked to look in the trunk of Ford’s car. Ford refused. Ford told the officer that he did not have probable cause to search his trunk. The police officer asked whether Ford was hiding something…. Ford continued to refuse several attempts by the officer to search his truck.

As the officer continued to argue, within minutes there were at least 5 police cars surrounding Ford and an overhead helicopter. Some of the additional officers that arrived to turns questioning Ford as to why he would not allow them to access his car trunk, or allow them to enter into his vehicle to search it. Ford continued to resist the officers demands to search his car or his trunk, even though Ford fear level was to the extreme, but the challenge to Ford’s constitutional rights were at stake.

Ford’s fears were justified because previously Ford had been contacted to investigate several cases by defendants and inmates who claimed drugs had been planted in the trunks of their cars, or somewhere in their vehicles in Los Angeles. It turned out that his clients were right. Coincidentally, at the time of this detention, Ford was just returning from an interview with a defendant at Airport Courthouse who had made these claims against officers, when this event occurred. Ford held his grounds because Ford wanted to make sure that everyone who lived in the area would come out of their homes and businesses out of curiosity to why all these police officers were stopping him. Ford wanted to make sure that these officers did not plant any drugs with all of the bystanders watching this event.

Later Ford would find that this was all part of what is now known as the “Rampart Scandal” in which multiple police officers were indicted for planting drugs in defendant's cars, and extorting individuals on trumped up drug offenses involving sales of narcotics. That day changed the way Ford thought about the justice system and how it was corrupted and deliberately targeted minorities and marginalized people.

Ford, the founder of C. J. Ford Private Investigations started specializing in criminal and wrongful conviction cases. Ford now manages and runs one of the largest wrongful conviction programs designed to fully investigate criminal cases. These are some of the programs objectives:

1. Investigate for evidence needed for new trials for people who have been the victim of a corrupt justice system 2. Find DNA evidence or other exculpatory evidence. 3. Find missing witnesses that were were never questioned or part of the trial that may have very critical evidence. 4. Question recanting witnesses to determine if they were coerced or extorted in giving their testimony. 5. Interview rebuttal witnesses. 6. Research history of Prosecution witnesses to make sure that they testified with clean hands. 7. Research history of police or detective to see if any other complaints of misconduct were filed. 8. Try to solve the case and put the correct person in custody. 9. Look for alternative solutions such as Pardons, Clemency, unjust sentencing, and other early release prospects.

Most of Ford’s wrongful conviction cases involve Prosecutorial Misconduct, Police Misconduct, and Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel. Ford works both on State and Federal cases. Ford also works on cases where the police department has even closed, rejected, or will not pursue,

Ford has lived in Orange County for most of his life. At age 64, he has seen firsthand the discrimination that can take place and the ways it surfaces in the criminal justice system, especially toward black people like himself. He has been involved with criminal justice for over thirty years, beginning as a bounty hunter recovering bail bonds, then moving on to private investigations. His most well-known case, that of Kenneth Clair has been ongoing for over ten years. Ford believes that everyone has the right to a fair trial, even if it takes years to overturn a wrongful conviction sentence.

Occasionally, there are guilty inmates who approach him looking to get out of prison. One inmate convicted of kidnapping, rape, brutally beating a woman, and leaving her to die sought Ford’s services. After investigating the case, Ford found that all the evidence indicated that the man was guilty. When Ford confronted the inmate, he confessed. Ford's objective is to exonerate Wrongfully Convicted People, so you do not want to have a case fully investigated if the person is guilty.

Ford has compassion for people who are wrongfully convicted and are separated from their families and friends just because Prosecutors flourish and receive promotions by the numbers of people that they convict regardless of whether or not the person is actually guilty of committing the crime. Ford believes that no matter how long it takes, a person is entitled to fight for their freedom when they are wrongfully convicted.

An example of how long and hard Ford will fight is his signature case, the Kenneth Clair Case. Kenneth Clair was convicted in 1987 of the murder of Linda Faye Rodgers in Santa Ana on November 15, 1984. Ford believes that Clair is innocent. In an ongoing investigation by Ford that has taken about a decade to complete because of opposition from not only the Prosecution, but Clair’s own defense representatives, Ford found the crime scene evidence that police said was destroyed. Later Ford discovered that the DNA was secretly tested, and Mr. Clair’s DNA was not found at the crime scene. However, another parties DNA was found at the crime scene. The DA refused to release the name of the person to the defense stating outlandish claims such as the person’s DNA is not relevant, that the DNA was left by a child that was too young to have committed the murder, that the DNA was eft by someone who wasn’t in the country at the time of the murder. However, the DA could not dispute that the DNA did not belong to Clair, which was Ford’s findings. The DA decided to come up with a theory that somehow Clair committed the crime, but Clair was careful not to leave DNA. This theory is preposterous because in 1984 when the crime was committed, DNA was not a standard or proven method until about the late 1990’s. Factually, Clair would not have known that DNA could be extracted from sweat, dandruff, touching paper or other surfaces, and from other trace evidence.

After Ford's findings, Ford took on one of the most prolific battles in the history of Orange County, which has never exonerated a death row inmate. The DA contention is to stall as much as possible, hoping that Clair dies in custody. Ford has expressed that the DA has no ethics or morals and would allow an innocent man to die to protect their “Win at all Cost” attitude. Also, Clair can claim about $125.00 per day for 34 years he has been incarcerated, plus treble damages because he has been held maliciously.

It is because of this revelation regarding the DNA not belonging to Clair’s and these other factors, made Ford’s fight for Clair’s life. One fact was a child's statements. The child actually witnessed the crime and told police detectives that it was a white man who committed the crime. Even the lead detective reported that the witness was creditable because the child’s depiction of the stab wounds, and other instruments that was used by the killer corresponded with the coroner's report. The detective tested the child using photos of different races and the child could clearly differentiate between races. The child mysteriously never testified at the trial. The fact that the child said it was a black man, the lead detectives racial test of the child was never heard from the jury.

Another factor was the Prosecution's star witness. She tried to work with the police department by wearing wires on two separate occasions to try to place Clair at the crime scene and later stated that Clair showed her some jewelry that was supposedly taken during the murder. Ford came up with overwhelming evidence and statements from the girlfriend’s care givers that was irrefutable in federal court that the girlfriend has suffered an accident that literally split her skull, and had a nearly complete memory lapse which was so severe that the girlfriend could not even remember her own mother and father. Ford’s statements from the care givers and the testimony was so powerful and conclusive that the court took it into evidence unopposed.

The care giver’s statement to the appellate court that the girlfriend was in their care during that period of time, the memory loss, and the fact that the girlfriend was so sedated taking so much medication for her illness, that she could not even walk without assistance was overwhelming. However, these two witnesses were never called on by the defense at the original trial, even though the defense was aware of the concise, factual, and critical evidence that they had to offer to their client’s defense.

The identity of the person whose DNA does match that found at the crime scene is yet undisclosed. Ford’s petition on to the district attorney to release this evidence and, by extension, exonerate Kenneth Clair got over 160,000 signatures. Ford’s decision to make his findings public and to bring more attention to Clair’s case was deliberate. Ordinarily, the DA’s office would never have responded to Ford’s investigative result claims publicly, and for the most part, ignored every effort Ford made to have the DAs office review and exonerate a Clair.

So Ford started an unprecedented attack publicly on behalf of Clair on the DA’s office. Ford made sure that Clair’s case garnered attention not only on social media but also from news outlets such as the OC Register, the OC Weekly, Reason TV, and ABC. Ford pressed the DA’s office so profusely that the DA, who completely ignored Ford, now found himself in the position of having to respond to the public criticism demanding to know why the DAs office refused to give Clair a new trial or exonerate him because of the overwhelming DNA evidence that existed. The DA’s office released a seven-part series on YouTube explaining that they are refusing to allow Kenneth Clair another trial because evidence does not support it. Ford stated, “The worst mistake that the DA could’ve made was putting out that seven-part miniseries.” Ford stated that it provided him with more leads to exonerating evidence, and other evidence that the DA did not turn over according to “Brady” law, to the defense.

If Ford could retire, he says that he would become a full-time activist protesting social justice corruption, wrongful convictions, and other social injustices. However, Ford thinks that his best contribution is his investigation firm taking on wrongful convictions and criminal justice issues.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjfordjr (talkcontribs) 00:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cjfordjr: If you could tell us what all this text is about, that might help. Is it an essay, a story, a campaign article involving yourself? As it stands, it's got no resemblance to an encyclopaedia article, so it would appear to have no place here. You might be violating WP:COPYVIO if it's been pasted off of a website. But as it appears to be some sort of personal musing or rant, I'd say it violates WP:NOTWEBHOST. Enyclopaedia articles introfuce a topic, and use references to published reliable sources to support factual statements. Yours has none of this. See WP:YFA for help in creating and submitting proper articles. Hope that helps a bit. Nick Moyes (talk)|
We actually have an article on the Rampart scandal to which the first few paragraphs of the collapsed piece refers: it's possible that some parts of the information there could be added to the article if they could be cited to independent, published Reliable sources such as journalists' reports.
As a former professional editor, however, I am moved by the quality and style of the prose to ask if it is Cjfordjr's own work or is copypasted from a published piece, in which case it would be a Copyright violation and should be removed from this page, and could not of course be used directly in any article: information cited from aforementioned reliable sources still has to be rewritten in a Wikipedia contributor's own words. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Sushi rolls

Why are sushi rolls not a thing yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosie112233 (talkcontribs) 23:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. The Teahouse is for questions about Wikipedia. Thanks. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 23:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
This user has just been blocked for disruptive editing. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the above appropriate block, I do notice that although several of our articles refer to sushi rolls, including the article Sushi, the term Sushi roll is nowhere explicitly defined and does not redirect. Since sushi rolls may be the only context in which some people encounter sushi, I suggest at least a redirect to the Sushi article might be appropriate. {The poster formerly known as 87.81l230.195} (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Can I write an article about this game?

I wanna create an article for the game Thrive, by Revolutionary Games. But the only references are the Revolutionary Games website, their wiki and (possibly) the forums (where the developers write about planned features). Can I write this article?

Ready NB (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Ready NB, Unlikely, as the sources you have mentioned are not independent. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The above is correct, but lacking in detail. I would expect a new user such as Ready NB to be better-served by a link to Wikipedia:Your first article, which explains why it would be a bad idea to create an article if only non-independent sources exist. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

List of Storage Wars episodes needs to be updated

A twelfth season of Storage Wars has premiered and 16 episodes of it have aired on A&E TV but in the Episode List section of List of Storage Wars episodes, the episodes of twelfth season are not mentioned. I request the fellow editor(s) to update the article. मन-मन्दिर (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The place to request an update is at Talk:List of Storage Wars episodes, supported by published reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

my post has been deleted twice ?


I am just wandering why my post has been removed twice. its authentic, and its a famous Chinese artist'name who we try to bring into the English world. Thank you.


@Kaja.wa: Hello. I'd like to help you, but I can't seem to figure out what you're talking about. Mind providing a link to the old revisions containing your posts? Also, please remember to sign your comments by typing four tiles in a row. Regards, Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 11:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
[Edit Conflict]
Kaja, It's impossible to know what you are asking about because you have not properly signed your post with four tildes (i.e. ~~~~), nor have you provided a wikilink to the article (or other page) in question. However, additions to Wikipedia are often removed because they have not been Cited to an independent and published Reliable source. (I believe that the rules requiring this are much stricter here on the English Wikipedia than they are on the Chinese Wikipedia(s).) We also insist that Wikipedia is not used for promoting or publicising any subject: articles can contain neutral information and facts about a subject (provided they are all cited) but cannot be used to give subjective praise. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Kaja.wa tried to make a page for the painter Yan Ming but did so by overwrinting a disambiguation page. If they want to create such a page, it could be created at Yan Ming (artist) instead, and an entry for the new article can be added to Yan Ming. Vexations (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kaja.wa: Basically, wrong place. As a new editor WP:Your first article is good learning start. Then, you can work on a draft of the article in your Sandbox, in the process, learning how to create references. What Vexations described is because there are several existing articles about people named Yan Ming, each new article has to have additional description within ( ). Hence the proposed Yan Ming (artist). Once that becomes an article, a link is created on the disambiguation page, giving searchers a choice of where to go. David notMD (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Two articles about the same person. This needs to be fixed.

I created an article Jennifer Yu (Chess player). And there already was an article Jenifer Yu (chess player) the only difference is the upper-case letter C in Chess. Sorry about the error. I searched for an article, but didn't find one. Mea culpa. How does an article get deleted? Should be done soon. Thanks. Bitwixen (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC) I have read that only administrators can perform deletions. Thanks. Bitwixen (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC) To be clear: The article Jennifer Yu (chess player) was published first and should remain. Bitwixen (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Your spelling error is a plausible misspelling (obviously, as you made it, it follows others might too), so rather than delete it, I just redirected it to the original article. Bitwixen, you could have done that too as it takes no special permissions. Take a look to see the markup and how I tagged it. Thanks for stopping by Teahouse! John from Idegon (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Just a piece of advice here. Even without it being a duplicate, that was nothing even resembling a proper encyclopedia article. Please read WP:MFA and submit your drafts for review via WP:AFC. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
This "was nothing even resembling a proper encyclopedia article?" Really? Could've fooled me. (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Hear, hear. It looks like a fairly decent stub to me. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all.Bitwixen (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've finished my article and I'd like it to be published.. help !!!


I've finished my article and I'm happy with the content. However, I don’t know how to publish it so it can appear on google search. Could you please assist me with this, in a clear, concise way, next by step and its duration?

Kind regards YM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonda Music (talkcontribs) 13:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Yonda Music: the only page which you have edited is your user page, User:Yonda Music, which seems to be an autobiography. Autobiographies are strongly discouraged in Wikipedia because it is so very difficult to be impartial. In this case, your article is nowhere near ready to publish - it does not contain any references at all. I cannot see any indication that the subject (you?) meets the requirement for musicians to be included in Wikipedia: those are documented at WP:MUSIC. If you wish to proceed with an autobiography and believe you can be more neutral, then first read carefully the advice at WP:AUTOBIO. Then gather your sources. Independent, reliable sources - books that have been written about the subject, journal articles that discuss him in detail, major television shows that covered it, etc. Then write the article based on what those sources say, not based on your personal knowledge. Cite all the sources using footnotes. Then it may be ready to submit.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, Yonda Music, your userpage is not the place to draft an article. See WP:UP for further information. John from Idegon (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


Hello, Can you help me understand the purpose of 'Category:AfC submissions declined as an advertisement' being posted on a draft article? I hadn't noticed it before. Thanks!LorriBrown (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, LorriBrown, it's quite simple. It sounds like you've turned on "Show Hidden Categories" in Preferences and you're seeing one of many tracking categories which help us keep track of the types of draft articles we have here, and innumerable other pages, too. To see what a wide range of categories we have, see Category:Tracking categories. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@LorriBrown: I'm not sure what type of answer you are looking for. AFC refers to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Users can use this process to create drafts and submit them for review. If they are declined then the reviewer may add code of form {{AFC submission|D|advert|...}} where D means declined and advert is one of the possible reasons listed at Template:AFC submission/comments. The code displays a box and adds the draft to Category:AfC submissions declined as an advertisement. (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick Moyes Yes indeed I did change that setting... but didn't connect the two. Now I get why I didn't see that before. :-) Thank you for explaining that! LorriBrown (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello @PrimeHunter: Thank you for your explanation. That helps but I am just bummed that the article got tagged with that. I had hoped to get feedback prior to submitting the article for review and was very dismayed to read that in the denial. Had I understood how to better construct an article I would hope I could have avoided that interpretation at least. Thanks again, LorriBrown (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@LorriBrown: There's really no limit on how many times you can submit a draft to AfC for review. Not many drafts get accepted on there first attempt which is usually why the reveiwer leaves a note explaining why they have declined a draft. So, you can continue to work on the draft and then re-submitted once again. You only start to run into problems when (1) you keep submitting the same declined version of the draft repeatedly (see WP:DMFD), (2) you let the draft go unedited for more than six months (see WP:G13), or (3) no amount of effort will ever bring the draft upto Wikipedia's standards for articles or there are serious policy violations which need addressing (see WP:TNT). -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Thank you for your reply! I appreciate the added information. LorriBrown (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


Does Wooferendum really doesn't satisfy WP:N? I found a number of sources online, and it already has two major marches, in October 2018 and March 2019. --B dash (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi B dash! My thought process was that there are several pressure groups that are calling for another People's Vote, most of which are not notable on their own. Usually these groups get redirected or merged into Aftermath of the 2016 United Kingdom_European Union membership referendum#Post-referendum campaigning. Bkissin (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

My first article has been deleted. Please give me some advice.

Hi, Thank you to AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) for recommending that I ask a question here. My first article, Becoming Animal (2018 film) (April 1), has been deleted.
The reason given was: "Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia."
Could someone please tell me which content violated copyright? I cited everything I could think of but obviously I did something wrong. Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgos923 (talkcontribs) 15:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bgos923: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may want to ask the deleting administrator to be sure, but in quickly looking at your draft it appears that you just copied the reviews section from the film's website to Wikipedia; this is not allowed because that website appears to not have a license compatible with Wikipedia's. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

What make I worng?

Dear Wikipedia-Team,

- I am the developer of the Photo Editing Software “Fotoworks XL” - I want to have my Software also on Wikipedia (Like the 50 other Photo Editing Programs on Wikipedia) - I wrote the article as NON-promotional I can (G11) - Is not a (G12) because is my own Software. I am the developer.

Here the draft:

- I make also the German entry years ago without problems:

BUT: What is the problem now? What exact must I change or make better?

Best Regards Anton Ilg — Preceding unsigned comment added by IN MEDIAKG TI (talkcontribs) 12:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@IN MEDIAKG TI: The first thing that is obvious is that this article does not have any sources at all. The very first step in writing the article should be to gather your sources. They should be independent, reliable sources - books that have been written about the subject, journal articles that discuss it in detail, major television shows that covered it, etc. Then write the article based on what those sources say, not based on your personal knowledge. Cite all the sources using footnotes. Then it may be ready for a review.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz:

You mean I should have references like:

and so on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

First, you are blocked until you change your User name so that it is not your company name. See your Talk page for how-to. Second, those for links are to companies that sell your software, and thus are not considered independent sources for citations. U.S. rules different from Germany rules. David notMD (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
David notMD, I think you mean "English Wikipedia has different rules from German Wikipedia". There is no US Wikipedia.
IN MEDIAKG TI: your main problem seems to be that you are trying to use English Wikipedia for promotion. That may be allowed on de-wiki, but it is not here. En-wiki has no interest in whether you want your software to appear here or not: it is only interested in whether or not your software is notable, by its criteria not yours. --ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)