Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 142

Archive 135

←

Archive 140

Archive 141

Archive 142

Archive 143

Archive 144

Archive 145

Pictures on Forums

I found a picture posted on a forum and the member who posted it is no longer active on the forum, can I upload the picture to Wikipedia as fair use or public domain or do I need permission? (Monkelese (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Monkelese, and thanks for asking. You certainly may NOT upload it as public domain, unless you have very definite information that the copyright holder has put it in the public domain, or unless there is some reason that you can be certain that it is old enough. As for fair use, Wikipedia applies a more restrictive set of rules called the WP:Non-free content criteria: only if you can satisfy every one of the ten conditions, including where the picture is to be used, may you upload it without permission. --ColinFine (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Move protection

When an film article is moved to match its title with how it appears in the film posters or in the film titles, how to prevent someone else from moving it again? The actual title may not be how words are used in convention. So someone may find it wrong and try to move it. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@Sriram Vikram: Welcome to the Teahouse. Move protection is usually not granted unless 1) There is already a move war (i.e. an edit war with page moves) or 2) It is being subject to pagemove vandalism (renaming pages to ridiculous titles). I would personally suggest being bold and just moving the page and worrying about it being reverted when it gets reverted. Happy editing, --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 14:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to like make a disclaimer or something when someone tries to move a page so as to remind them why the article is titled the way it is though the spelling may not be correct? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hm, posting a note about it on the article's talk page may be helpful, or possibly a hatnote (a small note at the top of the article) using Template:Hat. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 14:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks man. I appreciate it. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a moment! Sriram, the policy on article titles say that it should be the most common name of the subject, in English, which is not necessarily its complete or accurate name. You say "the actual title may not be how words are used in convention" - which suggests to me that perhaps the precise title of the file is not the best title for the article in English Wikipedia. I guess you are talking about Káthirunda Kangal, which I see you moved from Kaathirundha Kangal. But the (only!) reliable source in the article spells it "Kaathirundha Kangal" (the other two sources, neither of which is an acceptable reference, have other spellings). There is thus NO source quoted which uses the spelling you have now made the title of the article. I'm sorry, but I do not think you should have moved it. You say that a primary source (the film itself) uses this title, but as the page says that I linked to above, where there are variations Wikipedia uses "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". So I think it ought to be moved back to Kaathirundha Kangal. Of course the fact that the film spells it differently can be noted in the article - for a fact like that, a primary source would be acceptable. --ColinFine (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

But since the page was moved from the most common name, and there are no other articles with a similar title, it is going to redirect to the new title. Does that hurt anyone? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, the title as it was earlier was a literal translation from the original language. It is not uncommon in English to those symbols in English to show emphasis or stress on a letter. Doesn't wikipedia has a article called Tête à Tête? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not changing the spelling of words in their native language itself. Its the translation to English were the problem arises. Each one will have a different spelling. So the best option is to use them as it appears in the subject in question. Is the movie in question did not have titles in English, then we can go with the 'most common name' rule. But since had titles in English, I think its better to use them as it appears. Any suggestion is welcome. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the commonname for everything, even when there is an "official" name. Thus, we have an article on Bill Clinton, not his full name (as one example). ~Charmlet ^-talk- 22:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

About citing reliable sources.

Hello, Re my Articles for Creation/Contact Gallery, Norwich, 1986-1999. This article has been submitted and declined on three occasions this year for not providing enough reliable sources to prove it was a notable organisation. I have had some good advise from the Help Desk twice by Huon and on the last occasion by Ritchie333. Ritchie333 did an internet search thus "contact gallery", norwich and it listed 33 books and publications that mentions the gallery, some a few words, some a sentence or two; nothing substantial. Ritchie333 felt that citing this source of all the books etc. might 'tip the balance' and have it accepted. I will therefore give it another try but my question is: is it acceptable to just write - search internet for "contact gallery, norwich or is there a more technical way to cite this source. Also can you suggest any other avenues that I could try at this stage? Your advise would be very welcome as if I the article is declined a 4th time I will not try again. Thank you. Woodbutts (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Woodbutts. I salute you for your persistence! I would certainly not accept an internet search as any kind reference. I would also not agree with Ritchie333 that a large number of passing references add up to notability. The problem is that in theory every piece of information in an article (apart from common knowledge) should be supported by a reference; if references do not exist that discuss the subject at length, then there is no information you can validly put into the article, and hence there can be no article. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Woodbutts, I read your question as asking how to write the citations. While not every passing reference is appropriate, as ColinFine suggests, if some of the references do support notability, it will be good to include them. As for how to create the citation, check out Referencing for beginners which is designed to help new editors learn how to do citations properly.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia Foundation retains 10% of book price value do authors retain anything too?

I am very happy for the wikipedia Foundation to retain 10% of the book price for any book published but wondered, if there are multiple copies sold around the world how does the author get recompensed too? Geoff.112SU Stornoway (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The authors of Wikipedia articles are all volunteers, who release their rights to their text when they edit Wikipedia. Thus, it is not expected that the authors get anything. The Wikimedia Foundation only gets the 10% retention because of the fact that the WMF brings so much business (relatively) to the book printer that they felt it good to donate back to the WMF. Think of it like a discount you get for buying things in bulk. But anyone who edits Wikipedia should not expect money for their work. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 21:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I am about to write a short book and thought that Wikibooks was an excellent channel to do that through. I would like to hive off another 10% to my pet veterans association and I also put a value to the time and effort I put in originally too. So maybe there is an opportunity for a commercial side of "books" whereby the WikiFoundation gets say 15% but that the author retains say 50% but that the book price goes up correspondingly?112SU Stornoway (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That's probably not going to be done for one major reason - the WMF's mission is to support free content, in both cost and in ease of access and use. Thus, all content on Wikipedia, WikiBooks, and the other WMF projects is released under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license - meaning that anyone can reuse it for whatever reason, even selling it, and the author cannot expect any money in return (by default - if they want to pay you that's totally fine). So, if you're looking to make money off of your work, I suggest you not post it on any WMF project. Sorry for the confusion ~Charmlet ^-talk- 22:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your response - no confusion and I totally support the principle of free editorial work within the WP world for article writing but the time commitment of writing a book is something different. No matter, I'll seek alternative solutions. G. 112SU Stornoway (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, if my memory doesn't fail me, the idea behind Wikibooks was that having more than one person working on a book would not only improve the content of the book, but make the process faster. However it does involve releasing the copyright, which is why, I assume, it doesn't get as much use as everyone would like. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 22:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation does not sell books. Wikibooks, and all other Wikimedia projects as far as I know, has a license allowing anybody to print or sell the material without paying anyone. They just have to give attribution, often via a link or printed url to the source page. Most companies selling Wikimedia material do not give part of the proceeds to the Wikimedia Foundation. You are probably thinking of PediaPress which has made an agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation that a portion of the proceeds of each book will be donated to the Wikimedia Foundation to support their mission. This is a donation and not payment. However, Special:Book has a link to PediaPress under "Order as a printed book. Get a printed book from our print-on-demand partner." I don't know whether there are official terms in the agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation but a cynic might wonder whether PediaPress would donate without getting such links. Without actually knowing how PediaPress operates, I doubt individual authors could get an agreement for a donation or payment to the author. Whenever you save an edit at Wikibooks, you see wikibooks:MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning. This means you agree to others selling your work without payment. The corresponding message for the English Wikipedia is MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i am not so fimiliar with wikipedia and i cant understand many things about it too so i tried the live chatroom but how to use the live help chatroom storyteller 14:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcustom41049999 (talk • contribs)

Hello Marcustom41019999, welcome to the Teahouse. To use the help chat, go to this link, enter a nickname and the captcha (the pictures of numbers), and click "connect". When you've done that, move your mouse to the bottom of your browser window, click there, and then you should be able to type your question. Hope this helps! Howicus (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Another idea is to read the Primer, which is a great, unofficial introduction to editing Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Omission of involvement in rape trial in article

Hi, I hope I'm in the right place...I am new to the editing community and only joined in order to (hopefully) make one addition to an article: amend it to reflect that the subject went to trial for rape. I have no idea how to write code. Is there a way to send a suggestion for an edit, via email or a "comments" page? The brackets and tildes and colons are making my head spin, but I suspect this is a great deterrent to erroneous edits...

I have citations. Thanks for any help. jsl1016Jsl1016 (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, jsl, and welcome to the tea house. There are various answers, depending how adventurous you do feel. If you use the "Edit (beta)" link, that will put you into the new Visual Editor, which is designed for people who do not want to have to learn about brackets and colons. Otherwise, the direct answer to your question is that every page has a "Talk" page for just that purpose. Pick the tab labelled either "Talk" or "Discussion". --ColinFine (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jsl1016. How to cover the fact that the subject went to trial for rape depends very much on the outcome of the trial.If the person was convicted, then that is worthy of mention in the article. If the person was acquitted, or the charges were dropped, then extreme caution is called for. A brief, qualified mention may be appropriate if the case received extensive coverage in reliable sources. If not, it isn't appropriate to mention. Please see our policy on biographies of living people and notability guidelines for perpetrators of crimes for more guidance. If you give us the name of the person, we can give you much more specific advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Frederick Bee article

Frederick Bee's life was summarized in newspaper articles written about his funeral. www.frederickbee.com has dozens of webpages with references to Frederick Bee. More people would know about Frederick Bee by reading the Wikipedia article. How do I show that Frederick Bee is notable when I am using Wikipedia to make Frederick Bee notable? MC Potbelly (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

@Mcpotbelly: You don't. If he isn't notably without Wikipedia's help, he cannot have an article. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 15:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like on Frederick Bee you and User:Theroadislong are engaged in a good practice of improving the article and establishing notability. I also see that you have a productive dialogue running with Theroadislong at User_talk:Theroadislong#Frederick_Bee_notability_2. The article is not going to be deleted in a hurry, so don't worry about that. He's a decent editor, and should be able to give you good advice on the article. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

@Mcpotbelly: Hey, thanks for your question. I disagree with Jakob's response above, though your last sentence suggests you are planning on using articles on Wikipedia as citations for the article on Frederick Bee, which is generally not appropriate because Wikipedia is not a reliable source (as anyone can change it at anytime). The current article looks reasonably well-source, but if there is additional or more specific information that can be added to the article using the articles you've mentioned, you are invited to improve it. If you're looking to get the article itself to be more visible, you might consider trying to get the article to good article status or even featured article status, which require peer review. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Frederick Bee was notable. I have done some copy editing. It is an interesting story. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Cullen. Frederick Bee easily passes our WP:General notability guideline requirements. 64.40.54.143 (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Does Edit Warring 3RR apply to the original editor or to the account reverting original edits?

Hi, I've been reading up on edit warring and the 3 revert rule (3RR). For clarification, does the 3 revert rule apply to the original editor that made the edits or to the user reverting the editor's original edits? For example...

1. Editor makes changes, with reasons in talk page and/or in history.
2. A reverter reverts/undoes changes.
3. Editor restores his/her own changes.
4. A reverter reverts/undoes changes.
5. Editor restores his/her own changes.
6. A reverter reverts/undoes changes.

Where and to whom would the official edit warring be assigned in the above example?

Also, does restoring reverts against anonymous IPs count towards any of the above, if the reverter is not logged into an account?

Thanks for the help. --FGuerino (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring, while commonly associated with the three revert rule, is actually defined as a pattern of editing that shows that someone is not discussing, but is simply reverting. Thus, someone could be blocked for one revert, or two, or three, or not be blocked for four. Anyone who looks to be edit warring, even if they're trying to discuss, can be blocked. Your best bet is to always take it to an appropriate noticeboard, not to edit war yourself counting on the other person blocked. When that happens, usually both editors are disappointed with the results. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

In your scenario, FGuerino, edit #1 has nothing to do with edit warring. Neither does edit #2, as it is the bold way of indicating disagreemen with edit #1. However, best practice calls for an explanatory edit summary. The first clear sign of an impending edit war is at edit #3, if that editor failed to explain their thinking on the talk page, and especially, if they failed to leave an edit summary with a good explanation. The reverter broached the bright line at edit #6 and may get a block, but both are engaged in an edit war, and both should be warned to desist.

IP editors who aren't logged in are just as entitled to edit as anyone else, and also just as responsible for complying with policies and guidelnes.

3RR is a bright line that can't be crossed, but trying to "game the system" by waiting 24 hours and three minutes to revert, or conducting "slow motion" edit wars over longer periods of time, also constitutes edit warring.

Highly controversial topic areas like abortion, Israel/Palestine and the Tea Party movement may have restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee that include 1RR restrictions on edit warring.

The bottom line is that content disputes should be resolved by thoughtful, respectful discussion on talk pages involving compromise and leading to consensus, rather than aggressive behavior fueled by a battlefield mentality. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

how do I add a picture to my wikipedia page?

I am an Olympic athlete and would like to add a picture with my medal to my Wikipedia page. How can I do this. thanksRotorswa (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rotorswa, and let me start by congratulating you on your medal. It must be very gratifying to be one of the three top athletes in your field. You can count on me, and also the other Teahouse hosts, to help you with this process.

First of all, you must be willing to donate your photos freely under a proper Creative Commons license, allowing the photos to be used for any purpose forever. For the sake of discussion, if you invest in a business in ten years and it goes bankrupt, a local newspaper can use the photos of you with your medal to illustrate an article about that. I hope that there is never any negative news about you, but you have to understand that you will not have any control over the photos in the future.

If that is acceptable to you, then take several photos of the medal and I also suggest you take several photos of yourself wearing the medal. If you use your camera and plan and set up the shots, and simply have a friend click the shutter and agree that the photos are 100% yours, then it will be OK. But a professional photographer may be unwilling to release their work under a Creative Commons license. Double check. Have copies of the best of the photos on your computer's hard drive, cropped and just how you want them to be seen.

Now, go to the Wikimedia Commons website, and log in using your Wikipedia username and password. Click "upload file", and follow the step-by-step instructions. Make it clear that the photos are your work. Upload using a distinctive, descriptive file name such as "Mary Smith Olympic Silver Medal 2012" or whatever.

Once you upload, Wikimedia Commons will show you the wikicode that can be pasted, using "edit source", into the wikicode for the Wikipedia article about you. I know that this can seem like a tricky process for newcomers, but it isn't really that bad. Please feel free to ask questions at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

reference material does not include information given in article

What is the proper action when an article that I am editing seems to give reasons for an action that are not listed in the original reference? I hope this makes sense. ThanksNorawashere (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Norawashere! Great question. If the article is making a statement that is not in the cited sources, this statement should be removed. If you think it would be better not to remove the statement entirely, you can also use the tag {{failed verification}} which produces . This operates much like the famous tag. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

exciting new wikiprojects

Hello, I have recently joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Containers after making an article on Glass jars and am delighted to find that there is such a think as Wikiprojects. Which ones are the best and most exciting? Horatio Snickers (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Horatio Snickers! What WikiProjects you would like depends on what you want to edit on Wikipedia. What are your editing interests? öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Editing talk pages

So I was editing a page that has not been edited for several years, and I've noticed that the talk pages for that article has been inactive for about 4 years and that the discussions are not really relevant to the article. I know that I should not delete the entire talk page without the permissions of the respective authors, but what can I do? The discussions are not really long. It's Talk: CheongShim International Academy for further reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkj11210 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. No problem with leaving the talk page as it is. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to get back to the summary window I was editing

I was summarising what I changed in an article but accidentally left it before completing it. How can I get back to it to complete what I left unfinished. Ngchakngoon (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If you didn't save it, I'm afraid there isn't much you can do other than do it again. If you saved your edits then you can just edit the article again and finish what you were doing. Sorry! Horatio Snickers (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Template

I want to create a template by bypassing the AFC procedure. What am I supposed to provide in the documentation template? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! "Templates" covers a huge number of rather different things. It will depend on the nature of the template that you are creating (if you could describe the template you are creating we may be able to offer some more specific advice). In general, if you have user options/inputs within the template (for example, if you are designing an infobox), you should describe in the documentation what each of the options are are and how they should be filled. Ideally the documentation should be such that a competent user should be able to fully use your template without studying the source code. Hope that helps. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I am creating a template for a footer. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Cool. You probably need very little, if any, documentation then as the template should be quite simple. If the footer is collapsible, you may like to add <noinclude>{{collapsible option}}</noinclude> to add some basic documentation on how to implement the template. Template:National_Register_of_Historic_Places_in_Maryland is a random footer I just found that seems a good example. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Hey Sriram. Without the specifics of what the template does, where it is intended to be used and its purpose, I can only be general but the documentation should provide: a short statement about just those things: what it does, where it should be used and why and significantly how it is to be used. For example, what parameters it takes and whether they are optional, maybe provide a specific example of usage, and show how the output will appear. Such documentation pages are also used for placing categories, and often usefully state whether the template should be substituted or not (or whether it depends or is optional [rare]). What I would do is look at a bunch of high use templates that are somewhat similar in usage and see what their documentation says. Regarding AfC, though Wikipedia:Article wizard/Template exists, I don't think templates are a very good fit for the process. I would do just what you suggest and create it directly. However, depending on what it is, you might want to state your proposal and/or work out the functionality, feasibility and language of the template on the talk page of a relevant process/policy/guideline/Wikiproject that is relevant to the area that the template will be used for. See also {{Documentation}} and Wikipedia:Template documentation. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I am ready with the contents of the template. But why does it show, 'Creating Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template name'? If I post it, will it be in mainspace or will it go to AFC? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are creating it directly, just type the name you want into doubled brackets anywhere on Wikipedia, click "show preview" click on the red link you see in the preview, and then create that page. for example [[Template:Footer name you provide]] when save (or preview) results in the red-linked Template:Footer name you provide. If you click on the direct name you type, you can then create it. Using the Article Wizard's template creation method forces it into the "articles for creation" talk page title mode which is unwanted here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah. i just forgot that completely. Thank you very much. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Does a statement of fact have to be stated elsewhere first before being published on wikipedia?

I was looking at information regarding Jiroemon Kimura, and came to the conclusion that he was the last living man born in the 19th century prior to his death. I came to this conclusion based on the fact that Salustiano Sanchez is listed as his successor of oldest living man. Would it be unacceptable to add that information to the page without it being stated elsewhere first? Derfman1963 (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Derfmam and welcome. Yes that is very definitely so. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. All our material should come from reliable published sources, mostly from secondary sources although primary source material is used to a limited extent. Many people born at that time were not accurately recorded and many in remote parts of the world, eg Amazonia are still not recorded at all so the gentleman you refer to would only be the last known.--Charles (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, I feel this could be a failing of Wikipedia then. In this case for example, if no "reliable" source mentions this fact, then it will be lost to the readers of Wikipedia. I would suggest there be allowances for such things by clearly stating that it is original research based on information gleamed from Wikipedia. Unfortunately the reporter from the Mirror failed to notice this significant fact. Derfman1963 (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately I was able to find a good source, but still, if I had not been able to it would have been nice to be able to add it with the previously mentioned caveat. Derfman1963 (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue is what someone thinks is fact to them may be blatantly wrong, and there's no way for Wikipedia editors nor readers to reliably determine who's telling the truth. Furthermore, anyone can edit Wikipedia, so it's possible that original research done from Wikipedia articles is wrong as well. Thus, we do not allow original research. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 16:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't particularly apply to your situation but there is WP:CALC, which in a sense is an exception to "every fact must be sourced". Vzaak (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Extra column error

After my last edit (i.e. addition of a new row), the table is broken. An extra column is appearing. I tried fixing it, but, could not. Tito☸Dutta 05:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

After your entry no. 24 you have introduced a line containing only a pipe ('|'). The effect of this is to add an column to the end of the current row, and hence to the whole table. --ColinFine (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. Thank you. Superb observation. --Tito☸Dutta 09:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Stuck with Wikipedia (en) in my Google browser search window

My Firefox page is set to open to Google. Earlier today, I consulted a number of Wikipedia articles. Sometime during that process the search window in my Firefox toolbar got "stuck" with a Wikipedia identity, so whatever I want to search for on Google is now referred to Wikipedia with somewhat startling results. How can I reset my Google search window so it's not just for Wiki questions? 99.121.59.66 (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome! You may want to check your browser's setting, your search setting may be on Wikipedia and not Google. You also may want to check some of your browser's add-ons, plug-ins and extensions. ///EuroCarGT 03:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Try clicking a small triangle in the Firefox search box. That should give you options including Google. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Way to delete a certain kind of article

Hello everyone! I just found this place. I've edited a bit but a long time ago though I sometimes do spelling corrections without going into my account. I have a question, if that's okay. If an article is a "redirect" but it was was an encyclopedia article for a really long time before it became a redirect (and now has been a redirect for a long time too), and you think it should be deleted, do you try to do that at the articles for deletion page or the redirects for deletion page? (those pages are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.) Lady in polka dot (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lady in polka dot. There must be a reason why the article that existed for a long time was deleted and turned into a redirect a long time ago. There may be an Articles for Deletion debate that would shed light on the reasons. We have a saying that "redirects are cheap" which is slightly misleading since everything is cheap or almost free on this volunteer created online encyclopedia that doesn't have to purchase boxcars full of paper or tankcars full of ink. What that slogan really means is that a redirect term doesn't have to meet notability standards like a full-fledged article topic. Instead, it just has to be a plausible search term that someone might enter, and that we have an article that is relevant to that search term. That's a relatively low bar. So, my question is, why spend time trying to delete redirects? Some people may get satisfaction from this activity, but I find many other more interesting things to do on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cullen Thank you for welcoming me. It's not something I do or would get idle satisfaction from doing. I think there's a good reason. The article was never deleted and it was never considered by articles for deletion. What happened is that someone one day came and modified it to become a redirect to another article that mentions her and it stayed that way. It is a character assassination write up made to mislead and smear her name. Anyone can still read it by going to its history, so I think it should not be available at all. I am only looking for which page it would be considered at if I wanted to ask that it be deleted. Lady in polka dot (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is truly "character assassination" involved, Lady in polka dot, then this is a serious policy matter requiring immediate protective action by experienced editors. Please provide full details here or at the Biographies of living people noticeboard as soon as possible. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Not germane as she has been dead for over 100 years. I guess the answer to what I asked is not well known. I am going to ask at the discussion board of articles for deletion. Lady in polka dot (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If you could just tell us what the article is called we could check it for neutrality and edit accordingly, but if you keep it a secret nothing can happen! Theroadislong (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not true. If my question is answered, something will happen. I will be carefully writing a discussion for its deletion. My question is only about which page is the right one to post that discussion. Lady in polka dot (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You can list it here for deletion Wikipedia:RfD Theroadislong (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Lady in polka dot. It sounds to me like you are not looking to delete the redirect per se, but actually would be fine if the redirect remained but its history was deleted. I have not found anything directly on point in instruction, policy or guideline that provides a definitive answer, but it seems to me that since this really regards article content—whether the revisions of the article should be available for retrieval because (as you provide without giving us the specifics), it is a "character assassination write up made to mislead and smear" and not whether a redirect title should exist—I think this belongs, if at all, at articles for deletion.

There, I would state that issue is deletion of the page's history, and why that page history is a problem, citing to reliable sources showing it is an unwarranted attack on the subject. In that same regard, note that if the preexisting page did not cite to reliable sources for its content (or did so poorly), it very well may be that section G10 of the criterion for speedy deletion may be applicable; that you need go neither to AfD or RfD.

Because of the unusual way this is presented, though, I would not use the direct, generic template used to nominate pages under that criterion, which is ({{db-attack}}, but rather I would tailor a message using {{db}}, maybe with content like {{db|Please delete under CSD G10. Feel free to recreate the redirect once deleted. The issue here is the content sitting in the page history which is an attack because...}}. To use something like that you would go to the redirect page, click "edit source", then place that content at the top and save. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Redirect

How to fix double redirects? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Double redirects in the sense? What do you mean? Can you give a sample? --    L o g  X   18:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I recently moved a page that was already moved from another name. So when I search with the old name, it shows the redirect page instead of the article. Kaathiruntha Kangal -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry abt that. It just took some time for the page move to happen. So now its fixed!! -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Great! --    L o g  X   19:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Sriram Vikram and welcome to The Teahouse. A bot does what you needed done.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It was AvicBot. Here is where you can see what happened.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee:It was already been solved. Thanks --    L o g  X   21:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Sriram. Even though the specific issue has been addressed, for future reference, instructions on fixing double redirects are at Wikipedia:Double redirects#How to fix a double redirect. There is also a lot of useful instruction about best practice cleanup procedures upon page moves at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

How to turn-off Article feedback tool

Hey, I accidently turned on the article feedback tool on the Senthil Kumar page. I want to turn it off. Can anyone help on this? Thanks -- L o g X 19:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@LogX: It seems to have already been done by Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 21:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes he did it for me. Can you tell me how to perform it manually. (ie. by non-admins) Thanks -- L o g X 21:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible for non-admins , but if there's someone who knows otherwise, they could correct me. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 21:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Thanks for your help! Let's wait and see anyone has the answers! -- L o g X 21:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Help desk#Article Feedback Tool, where I answered your cross-posting there. Cheers--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you @Fuhghettaboutit: -- L o g X 14:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth Canning Porn Star

In the featured story about Elizabeth Canning the third sentence seems to have been lifted from some porn magazine.142.197.232.83 (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That vandalism was removed at 02:23 (UTC). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

how do I close my wikipedia account?

How do I close my wikipedia account? Has anyone ever managed it? 8paxrex (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello :) If you're referring to your Wikipedia login information, it is not possible to delete accounts. You can just stop using it. If you're referring to a page, please see our deletion policy for the reasons a page is deleted. Note that pages are not deleted just because their subject wishes it. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! As Charmle said you can't just delete a Wikipedia account, however you could stop using your account and place Template:Retired({ {retired} }) on your userpage to notify others that you no longer active. ///EuroCarGT 00:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

how do I remove italics...

I am an instructor editing my course Wikipage and cannot seem to remove italics from any of the text I am editing. It shows up correctly when I save changes, but then returns to italic when I click "return to mainpage." Any thoughts/suggestions would be greatly appreciated... Emilykayhanks (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried clearing your browser's cache? Eric Corbett 22:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Emily! Agreeing with Eric that that's likely the issue—your computer is storing a local version of parts of the page in cache memory to save processing and increase speed so what you are seeing is the old version—please see WP:BYPASS for a page that provides instruction, if needed, on clearing it. If that does not work, then it could be a cache issue on the other end – the cache of the Wikipedia page itself, though this is more rarely the issue when this type of matter comes up. One way to purge the page cache is to click "edit source" at the top of the page and then change the url at the end from &action=edit to &action=purge and hit return. See WP:PURGE for more information. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You didn't give a link to the page and without seeing the page it was impossible to say what the problem was, so the above guess is wrong. I looked at your contributions and saw the italics were on Education Program:Texas State University/POSI 5336 (Fall 2013). It was because you accidentally removed an apostrophe in the "You made it!" heading in [1]. That meant the ending italics code '' in the heading instead became a start of italics. The heading is displayed in the table of contents at Education Program:Texas State University/POSI 5336 (Fall 2013) so everything after that became italics. I have fixed it.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

we should update people's careers

on soap characters wiki's we should update there careers to show people what company the chacaters work at and keep the public updated on there current careersDavonct (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Davonct! Here at Wikipedia, one of our core beliefs is being bold. If you think something should be changed, then go right ahead and change it! Of course, being bold means that other people can "revert" your changes, or get rid of them. If you disagree with that, you may gently ask about it on their talk page. Remember to always be polite and assume that the person who reverted your changes is trying to improve Wikipedia as much as you are. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Davonct. Make sure you have reliable sources and don't put too much trivia.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Question about linking other Wikis

How can I link something to the Spanish Wikipedia. I know I knew it but I forgot. Thanks. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 18:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

H:IW should get you your answer eventually! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to inline links or the inter wiki list in the sidebar? DPRoberts534 (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This requires editing Wikidata. From your previous comments, I believe this is impossible given your restricted connection. If you list which articles need linking, we can do this for you. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I am responding to a Signpost interview and I need to link a quote to Wikiproyecto:U2 (at the Spanish Wikipedia) Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 19:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to link to a page on another project, you do it in the following form [[:language code:Page]], In this case [[:es:Wikiproyecto:U2]] yields es:Wikiproyecto:U2. Make sure you have the initial colon. If by "quote" you mean you need to link to a diff, you do that the same way you do in english Wikipedia, by putting the URL of the diff in between brackets. Ryan Vesey 19:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 19:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

How to cite newspaper references

I want to make a new article on a defunct marine engine factory. The references I have are old newspaper articles. How do I insert these as references. I know the name of the publications, but I do not know the excact date they were published. Allsidius (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you don't know the date they were published then it makes it virtually impossible for any reader to verify what you have included. Hence you may well have to delay your new article until you can find references that enable verification. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Allsidius You might try choosing a unique phrase and typing it into a search engine. Google scanned many newspapers, and while they stopped that project, you might get lucky. If so, it will identify the date, name of the newspaper and page numbers.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Are Guestbooks spam??

A user deleted my guestbook because he/she thought it was spam? It is correct? If not, I want my book back, it is not spam, even JImbo has one. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 12:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think a user added a spam link to your page just before it was deleted so maybe the deleting admin User:Legoktm made a mistake?Theroadislong (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. User:Miss Bono/Guestbook seems to be there. What was deleted? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This is what was deleted User talk:Miss Bono/Guestbook looks like someone created a fake guestbook on Miss bono's talk page, which was spotted and deleted by User:Legoktm very quickly Theroadislong (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Hey Miss Bono. I'm confused. You have a guest book at User:Miss Bono/Guestbook that has not been deleted and it does not appear anyone has asked to be deleted. The page that was deleted was at User talk:Miss Bono/Guestbook (deletion log entry), was created by an IP that geolocates to Beijing China (making me think it was not you since If I remember, you are in Cuba), with an edit summary pointing to what looks like a "QVC" type website selling jewelry, and had content like "Buying a Motor:" "Comparison shopping:", "Consider buying a employed car", each followed by content on that subject, and had never been edited by anyone but the IP who created the page. i.e., not one sign-in by a guest. Can you clarify whether the page that was actually deleted is the one you think was deleted, or is it possible when you saw this deletion you thought your still functioning, untouched guestbook was gone?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I am so so so sorry, when I saw that someone deleted my page, I thought it was my real guestbook (I wasn't around since last Friday). And I tried to follow the link before noticing it was a duplicated talk page. But now I notice the talk thingy. Sorry guys! :D It was a misunderstanding. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 13:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

How do I delete a page in my sand box that has been submitted for publishing?

I no longer wish to publish on this topic. Chinton521 (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Chinton521, and welcome to the teahouse. To get your draft deleted from your sandbox simply replace the page with {{Db-u1}} to have an administrator delete it under CSD:U1 (user requests user page deleted). Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

An article I created is flagged as an orphan, when I don't think it is

Hello! Thank you for inviting me into the Teahouse.

My question is that an article I created about "Hedgehog Street" has been flagged as an orphan, but I know there are links I made to it from the "People's Trust for Endangered Species" page and someone else recently linked to it from the "European hedgehog" page. Is there something wrong with it?

Thanks a trillion! Professor Hog (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

--    L o g  X   16:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question, although another editor fixed it already, anyone can remove a maintenance template (which is what the "orphan" tag is) by simply editing it off the page, as long as the problem has been solved. To check to see if an article is an orphan, just use the link on the left hand side of the page, "What links here". As long as there are two or more articles (not talk pages or project pages) linked to an article, it is not an orphan. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Review

I stumbled upon articles that have serious issues that I don't know whether to add cleanup tags or nominate for deletion. Can someone take a look and decide? Pooja Vaidyanath and D. Imman -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Pooja Vaidyanath has no sources for any fact in the article, and it's a biography of a living person. This is a problem. I've "PROD'd" it, which means it will be erased 10 days from now if nothing is done about this. Thank you for noticing this. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

D. Imman on the other hand looks like a better article, though still not good. I would suggest fixing what you can, and then adding cleanup tags. When adding tags, please consider describing in detail the problems in the article's talk page so that other editors can be better informed to help fix the issues. Cheers, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that experienced. So can I request you to do the needful? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

In D. Imman, except for the filmography part, there are no references. Also there are too many images. Even those images seems to be taken from the subject's official website. But they have been uploaded to commons. I think it could be copyvio. If so, please tag the images accordingly. Thanks -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there actually a necessity for these many images? Assuming I'm a notable person willing to share my photos, does wikipedia accept me filling my article page with umpteen images just because they are free? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There is an older version of the article that contains more citations. Unclear if the sources are reliable or if the information is correct. DPRoberts534 (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A few of them are dead links. And other few are those that are in filmography now. They too have used multiple times. The subject is definitely notable and reliable independent sources can be found. But the section "musical credibility" is more like a resume. There are too many images without any significance -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to LogX. Its been cleaned up now. I just think a tag could be added for more citations. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

help with vandalism

Please look at the article on Margaret Thatcher. There is some vandalism going on, which I have tried to revert once, but when look at the history it's been made to look as if I'm doing the vandalistic edits. I don't know how to handle this. Gravuritas (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Can you give us a diff for where you think the vandalism is, & where you think the history is making it look as if you are responsible? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

[[3]]- hope I've formatted that correctly- is the vandalism diff in question. Apologies because I said the Thatcher page and I should have said the Thatcher talk page.

This diff [[4]] then makes it look as if I've done the vandalism, but I think I've now worked out that the problem stems from my making an edit after the vandalism, but without noticing that the page had been vandalized. I think that's OK, isn't it?

Gravuritas (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You have realised that though your name appears on the left hand side of this diff, it doesn't mean that you were responsible for what is there, merely (as you said) that you were the last person to edit before that diff. As you realised, you need to go further back to see who actually wrote the offending material. Nothing for you to worry about, and you now know a bit more about reading diffs. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, and sorry for any bother. Gravuritas (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No bother at all. That's what the Teahouse is here for. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

how to separate mass from magnetic current

ok although I have issued several pages of what some might call theories, maybe?as an avid scientist with my discoverys ,I am finding it nessesary that the pages given should be kept complete and in order preferably. as the field of science that I tred in has a lot of words terms and phrases that simply aren't made up yet. as in the terminology of this said subject heading. if you as a scientist would like to learn how the ancients lifted huge blocks, cut stone with persision, and levitated crafts,then I simply find it nessesary to follow in order the pages previously sent, otherwise to follow along or to share becomes quite pointless. im hoping you will consider this request ,and put it all together and in order, everthing leading up to these final pages, this technology is the most advanced knowledge that mankind will know,it was here and used 20 000 years ago by the ancient civilizations. you can believe what you want but this is realRonald sykes (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This question was moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ronald sykes, welcome to the Tea House. It is Wikipedia's policy that articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. You should instead submit your research and findings to a suitable peer-reviewed scientific journal - which Wikipedia is not. BlackberrySorbet 08:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

how to upload artist page

Hi!

I want to add an artist (musician, composer, singer) page to Wikipedia. It is formatted on my sandbox (without picture since I do not know how to add the right hand square with picture) on page. What do I do to get the info on my sandbox on a wikipedia artist page? The singer/composer's name is Marisela Verena. Please help me! thanks! Georgina FernandezGeorgina Fernandez (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Georgina, thanks for your question. When the article in your sandbox is ready, it can be moved to the article space using the move instructions here. However, I notice that your article is in Spanish, and contains many inappropriate external links. I would suggest submitting your article to Articles for Creation so that an experienced editor can review your article. But before doing so, please write the article in English because otherwise, it will be difficult for many editors to review it properly. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can find the Spanish Wikipedia at es:, so (after checking on their policies on things like external links and references) you may wish to submit your draft for review there. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Making sure my article passes review...

Hi Teahouse! I don't know if this is something that Wiki editing veterans do, but I have written my first Wiki article and I wanted to make sure it passed the review process. Can anyone read and give me suggestions or critique it. I am most concerned about my neutrality. I became familiar with this company and was interested in them. I went to find more info and realized they had no wiki page so I wrote a small page...stub?? When I step back from the article I feel like it's neutral because it's truthful facts, and I have references to support the article. I have read the tips on neutrality....but I've also read wiki editing tips that encourage writers to stand up for their subject. I need an objective eye. I'm hoping to make edits now so it will be in great shape when it finally comes up in the queue. Wiki Page is called "Haute Face" Thank you,Cmhauteps11 (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cmhauteps11, welcome back! I read through your article, and unfortunately I see one problem that will prevent the article from being accepted, and another that may mean Wikipedia cannot have an article about the company. First, reviewers are expected to determine if the article content is promotional, and in general they have read a lot of articles and can tell if one stands out as overly promotional. Your article is an excellent advertisement for your company, but it is not encyclopedic in tone. The language used must objectively describe the company, products, and people as documented by independent reliable sources. Second, Wikipedia has guidelines that determine whether the subject warrants an article. In general, the article must reference at least one, but preferably multiple sources that are independent, reliable (not blogs), and provide in-depth coverage of the subject. The requirements for articles about companies are a bit more strict, specifying that product announcements and articles about business deals are not counted. It is not clear to me if the sources you referenced will meet that guideline. If coverage of the company does not meet the guideline, then the article will not be accepted no matter how much work you or I put into it. And that would be unfortunate, because I think that Wikipedia would benefit from having more articles about topics like yours. For detailed information about notability, see the policy page WP:CORP. From the backlog, it looks like you have about two days before your article is reviewed. DPRoberts534 (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much DPRoberts534! I understand. Thank you for the link. I'm going to read the information, edit the text, and look for more external sources...and pray. :) Cmhauteps11 (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi DPRoberts534. First -I saw your edits. I SO much appreciate the time and energy you have given to helping me. Thank you!!! One of the reasons I wanted to do this article on this company is because they absolutely fill a long standing need in the cosmetic world. As a woman of color and a consumer, I have found that Haute Face offers products that actually work instead of making promises that are never kept. This is gold to me, and I think it’s worth talking about. The little companies need to be written about while they are on their way to becoming the next Chanels and Revlons of the industry. I want Haute Face to stay around and thrive because, as a women of color who buys and wears makeup, I need Haute Face in the market place to answer a need that has never before been answered correctly for me. Currently, it’s as if my complexion doesn’t even exist, and that’s not fair to me and women all over the world who struggle with this, daily, just like me. So...they deserve a page. I guess truth and passion about a subject may sound...promotional. I get that, but it’s still the truth. In keeping with Wiki’s editing tip to stand up for my subject - I just want to write about the truth. You clearly have so much expertise and experience at this. Can you tell me how I can get this done with the same protections and image protections (because the next thing I want to submit are photos) that Chanel and Revlon have for their company? I read Wiki policies on free use and limitations and such of images and logos, but I see other companies on Wiki that have their protections in place. How can I do that for this company as well? What can I do to make sure this article passes review with all of its protections in place?Cmhauteps11 (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)