Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 457

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 450

←

Archive 455

about geocaching

I was hoping to create an article under my geocaching username (www.geocaching.com) the reason is to include Global Positioning Satellite co-ordinates in the article. Other geocachers would have to come to Wikki and look for the username to find out where to look. All information in the article would be true and verifiable at Geocaching.com. Is this allowable. This would be part of a mystery cache which required some type of research to find the GPS location. Stormcrow50 (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Unless sources independent of you and geocaching.com have written about the cache it does not belong as an article. It does not belong in userspace either as Wikipedia is not a webhost. -- GB fan 00:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, @Stormcrow50:. That sounds like something that belongs on a personal web page, not something that would be written about in an encyclopaedia article. Articles here are only for topics that are generally "notable" (in the particular Wikipedia sense of the word, where it has been written about in detail in multiple reliable, independent sources). Individual geocache contests would not meet this criterion, and would not be suitable for Wikipedia. There are plenty of Web hosting sites that would be better suited to your needs.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: I've changed the "Notable|" link from [[WP|Notable|]] to [[WP:Notable|notable]]; hope the latter is what you intended. CabbagePotato (talk) 05:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@CabbagePotato: Oops - is there a "red face" icon? Thanks for picking that up.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

{{Blush}}

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC).

Also note that anyone can edit Wikipedia pages and somebody may change coordinates and other content. An article about a geocache would probably be deleted quickly. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with my learned colleagues - in tone and effect if not substance. For example a geocache near me is in a ruined priory. If I were to create a Wikipedia article about that priory, which has ample coverage in reliable sources, and add the co-ordinates, that would be fine.

Of course the co-ordinates are supposed, generally, to be the "centre" of the subject, so that may not fit exactly with your requirements, but the last part of a cache is usually a bit of a search anyway, so that may not be a problem.

IOW provided that you are complying with WP standards, are improving the encyclopaedia, and you accept that what you write is subject to change, I see no problem.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC).

@User:Rich Farmbrough, an article about such a ruined priory will stand or fall on the merits of its sources; the history of the priory, architectural significance of the structure, tourism value, etc. The fact that it may incidentally be used as a geocache is utterly trivial and devoid of any relevance to the notability of the ruin and barely worth mentioning - unless geocaching suddenly becomes a hot topic in mainstream news or academia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. But typically there will be a clue in the previous step (sometimes there are a series of caches, sometimes there is a something written for each step where you need information from each location to complete the next clue). So imagine the text from outside Wikipedia said "Find what I wrote in the reference site, and go there - search under the east pillar that corresponds to Master Tyler's ordinal." The hunter has to figure out "the reference site" is Wikipedia, look for User:Stormcrow50, find the article they created. They can then go to the co-ords from the article, and from the list of of priors, figure that "Master Tyler" is the fifth, and search under the fifth east pillar.

Nothing in the article mentions the geocache, nothing in the article is irrelevant to the article. The co-ords are correct, the sources are fine, the article is created/imporved.

And the geocachers have some extra fun as well.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC).

I'll look out for your new article and new cache to add to your 136 already hidden, though unfortunately I'm unlikely to be able to look for it. Congratulations on your 15352 finds! Dbfirs 22:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Logged out

Today, I was logged out of my account two times. I didn't log out. There is some error. I had to log in again. --Captain Spark (talk) 10:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not a Teahouse host, but as I remember, one needs to tick a box when logging in if one wants to stay logged in for up to the maximum one month. Otherwise each time one leaves Wikipedia one will be logged out automatically and be required to log in again at the next visit, even if only minutes later. SovalValtos (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I do understand such simple things, but simply clicking on a page-link won't log out anybody as it happened today multiple times. Captain Spark (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you will have to give a clearer narrative describing how the problem occurred to attract a fruitful answer. I will leave answering you again to a proper host. SovalValtos (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Captain Spark, welcome back to the Teahouse! Wikipedia uses Internet cookies to ensure that you remain logged in. Check to see if your browser has enabled cookies—if you're using Google Chrome, there is a tutorial here; if you're using a different browser, check that browser's preferences. Make sure your computer's date and time are set correctly, as that can interfere with the cookies as well. Additionally, according to Help:Logging in#Login issues and problems: Occasionally, a user may find him/herself "automatically" logged out between beginning an edit and saving it, or when switching between multiple wiki pages open in multiple windows or tabs. This can be a result of your browser's cookie, cache, or firewall settings, but sometimes, especially during heavy server load, the system can "glitch" and your login information will be lost, resulting in a logout. I hope this information helps. If the issue continues to occur, the folks at the technical village pump might have more knowledge to answer this question, so consider asking for additional help there. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Category help!

Hi, I have added two categories to a page and it looks like I've done it correctly, but there is still a box saying it hasn't been added to a category. Would someone be able to check for me please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Jones_%28musician_and_poet%29 Thanks! Stripeyjane (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I see him, both in the article and in two categories, as having been added to those categories. (Your question is not the only evidence I have seen that categories are propagating slowly today.) Maproom (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You just needed to remove the template {{uncategorized}} from the top of the edit window.

Done Jodosma (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you!! Stripeyjane (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources not applicable

Hello Teahouse, I have found that when on Wikipedia, I click on a source & find that the page is quite often not available. Today I tried to add a ^{[failed verification]}, but I am not sure how I would add it. Sorry, I am pretty new. I placed it in next to the source, so it was [17]^{[failed verification]}, but would I replace it? If anyone would help I would be very grateful. Thankyou, JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JoshMuirWikipedia. There is no requirement that a reliable source be available online in order to be used in a Wikipedia article. I have sometimes cited in detail old books that are not available online. That is OK. But if there is an offline source, and an equivalent online source of comparable reliability, we should cite the online source as a convenience to our readers.

A related problem is that a source once available online may no longer be available. See WP:LINKROT. Websites sometimes rearrange their URLs or trim old content. In some cases, a fresh URL can often be discovered by Googling the title and author. It is worthwhile to make an effort to rebuild outdated references. However, if you believe that a hoax or misrepresentation is taking place, then revert the content with an informative edit summary, and be prepared to explain your edits on the article's talk page if challenged. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Mistake in article thats private and I can't edit it.

There's only an audio commentary on two of the three Equestria Girls movies in the box set and the box set is the same movie as far as case and disk as some of the movies out there but some have extra stuff in the like a wrist band in one of the rainbow rocks movie dvd's. But Equestria Girls (one) doesn't have an audio commentary. It's a locked article and I can't edit it (it doesn't have an edit option) or I would have changed it .Starmoon1234 (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Starmoon1234. I'm not certain which article you are talking about, and none of My Little Pony: Equestria Girls, My Little Pony: Equestria Girls – Rainbow Rocks and My Little Pony: Equestria Girls – Friendship Games are protected from editing. (It always helps if you name and link the article you have a question about). Assuming it's some other article that is protected, you can make an edit-protected request for a change to be made on the article's talk page.

This can be done manually, by going to the talk page, making a new section and placing above your request {{Edit semi-protected}} or {{Edit fully-protected}} (depending on what level of protection the page has). There's also an automated option to do this that should be presented to you. When you are at a protected page instead of an edit button at the top you'll see "view source". If you click that the resulting view should present a blue button that says "submit an edit request". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The mistake is on the main page the url is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic

On the table about the three-box movie Starmoon1234 (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I left an edit request on the main page on Feb 28th. It's a semi-protected article and I'm not a registered user. Starmoon1234 (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Starmoon1234, you are registered but not autoconfirmed yet (after four days and 10 edits you will be). But you did well with the edit request; it should be answered soon. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

IPMI specification

As a new boy on the block, can anyone assist with understanding of the following:but the username is mentioned as an assignee to the patent; hence, there appears to be a conflict of interest which should be examined. GreenReaper (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC). Adrian White 87.243.207.255 (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that the question is about Intelligent Platform Management Interface, and this Conflict Of Interest discussion. Maproom (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Now that I've had more time to look at it, I think I can answer 87.243.207.255's question. A user called Pchelpcentre has edited ten or so articles to insert mentions of a patent said to be in the name of Adrian White. It seems that someone (maybe GreenReaper?) suspects that Pchelpcentre is Adrian White, and therefore has a conflict of interest and ought not to making such edits. Maproom (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Essentially, yes, although I'd be fine with editing by Pchelpcentre (the name of the assignee / patent 'owner' rather than the inventor, though it may be controlled by them), as long as the statements they were made were backed by third-party reliable sources. As it is, we have a Wikipedia editor evaluating a primary source (the patent). That's not really kosher whoever it is - the fact that there's a conflict of interest makes it that much worse. GreenReaper (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia.org provides where possible factual information and therefore my edits in the IPMI section was to address that INTEL was not the inventor of the technology (I will provide claims charts to validate) as I had first publish the patent pending in June 1996. This was two years before INTEL came out with the IPMI specification. I have not mentioned any other name than Adrian White as the author and inventor, so I am struggling why the edits that I have made are considered to be conflict of interest.87.243.207.255 (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Adrian White, actually Wikipedia provides neutral, verifiable information, which is not always the same as "factual" information. You didn't provide an independent reliable source to verify that a court has determined your patent covers the interface. And inserting a claim about yourself is certainly a conflict of interest. —teb728 t c 11:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

"Citation needed" despite citation present

Hello,

I tried to add the the KPhotoalbum page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPhotoAlbum) Most prominently Wikipedia complains about missing citations and (at least for me) the article looked like the project is abandoned, because of a really old "Stable release". So I added more releases with big features and added references to the release history on the project web page. Unfortunately the "Citation needed" where still present after I added the citation at the end of the sentence. (As I had understood the Help on citation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_Wiki_Markup/2)) Now I moved the citation immediately to the place where the "citation needed" is shown (on the version numbers), but even now the "Citation needed" is there. What do I miss ? (I used the "Cite" tool of the Wiki editor) MJost (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello MJost and welcome to the Teahouse. These templates have to be removed manually by editors. I have removed them in this case, but usually it's useful to remove them yourself when you add sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks !

I didn't relaize this. I assumed, these will disappear automatically, as they also turned up automatically. (And removing them won't help much, because they will come back; although this would have been worth a very easy try) Thanks for stepping in and the clarification. Lesson learned - and it is appreciated. MJost (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

No, there's nothing automatic about "Citation needed" tags. Editors put them in when they think they are required. The only automatic process is the robot AnomieBOT that just adds the date. Dbfirs 09:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

How to work in a project?

How to you participate in a huge project? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bianca Levine (talk • contribs) 11:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Bianca Levine and welcome to the Teahouse. If by project you mean Wikipedia - and since you ask here you probably do - I've got good news for you: there are many, many ways to participate in it. All editors are different but share one thing in common: we are all volunteers. As volunteers, we contribute in the way we want - within the scope of the project of course: we are building an encyclopedia. There is a humorous (but insightful) way to characterize different ways to participate here: Wikipedia:WikiFauna ie. some editors are like "gnomes", very much hidden from the spotlight doing important tasks somewhat hidden from the eye of the rest; some are "jaguars" who jump into discussions unexpectedly when they have a good point to make; some are "otters" who rather like to take it easy and make others feel relaxed as well - all very important things that complement one another. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Add an entry which is absent from the biography of an actress

I looked at the code involved to make an edit to an entry but do not understand the technique.

The entry needs to be updated for the individual rather than the content.

The entry has to contain the title, episode number and year (I guess) for Joyce Jameson-- well know tv performer in the 1950's. I hve that information as does the IMDb. How is it added?

The citation is here:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0417055/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Episode title : The Human circuit"

Also here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Fiction_Theatre#Season_1  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.28.4.64 (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This episode is already present in the table. Ruslik_Zero 12:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Geo coordinates

How do I convert 34° 39.367′ n, 82° 18.983′ w into proper WP coordinates?John Foxe (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Does the documentation at {{coord}} help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukexpat (talk • contribs) 02:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi John Foxe. I inputed your coordinates into the knowledge engine Wolfram Alpha and it converts to 34.6561°N, 82.3164°W. Try using {{Coord|34.6561|N|82.3164|W}}. Best, Mz7 (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@John Foxe: I'll just add that a useful tool for dealing with coordinates is GeoLocator. If you enter "34° 39.367′ n, 82° 18.983′ w" in the dialog box at top left, the tool will display the coordinates in both degrees-minutes-seconds and decimal forms, show the location on a Google map (useful for ensuring against errors and for refining the coordinates if necessary), and provide a few filled-in {{coord}} templates that you may want to use in a WP article. Deor (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your help.--John Foxe (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Uploading pictures with copyright to Wikipedia

Hi, When trying to upload an image on Wikipedia I noticed there's a bunch of statuses you can give to a copyright to an image you upload on Wikipedia. I'm not sure which one to use for images you find online. For example, say you find this image online and you want to upload it on Wikipedia. Which copyright status do you put on there and why? How can I prevent having my images removed due to copyright? Do you have any tips for uploading images from online? Electrico96 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, I tried submitting a question through the "Ask a Question" feature at the top of the page but it didn't work. I wrote the question, clicked on the "Ask My Question" button, then the page refreshed, the text I wrote disappeared and the question didn't submit. Is there a way to fix this? Electrico96 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

More difficult to answer, not having seen exactly what you did - did you click "Save page" rather than "show preview? What OS and browser are you using? - Arjayay (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I clicked on the big blue button at the top of the page that said "Ask a Question", filled out the question, clicked on the grey "Ask My Question" tab on the bottom left of the pop-up screen that comes up when you click the blue button, the screen refreshed, and the question disappeared. I'm using Chrome on Windows 10. I also tried on the iPad as well with the same results. Electrico96 (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Odd. I don't get a "grey "Ask My Question" tab" - just a standard editing window with "Save page" "Show preview" and Show changes" buttons, but without the Minor edit and watch this page tick boxes - sorry I can't help - Arjayay (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Arjayay. You can only upload images to Commons if you own the copyright or they are already in the public domain.Charles (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Er yes, as I said "you cannot upload it to Wikipedia" - Arjayay (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Electrico96. When using the ask a question button, the internal button for "Ask my Question" at the bottom of the field presented to you will stay greyed-out until you sign your post by typing four tildes. The question field tells you this at the bottom:

On Wikipedia, you should sign all of your non-article posts by ending them with four tildes (~~~~)
(Note: this question submission form will not work without them.)

It sounds like lack of signing may have been the issue. Did you sign the post with four tildes? If you did, and the button was actually live but it just refreshed the page, that is very concerning.

As to images, the rule of thumb is that you normally you cannot upload any images unless you have affirmative proof that the image is under a suitably-free copyright license or is in the public domain. This can be explicit (at the location of hosting it displays a compatible free copyright license), or implicit (it is in the public domain because of age or status, e.g., respectively, it is an image published in the U.S. before 1923, or is a direct work of the U.S. Federal Government, prepared by an officer or employee of the United States government as part of that person's official duties).

That is, if the image has no copyright tag (unlike the example one you pointed to above) we assume it's under a fully non-free copyrighted and can't be used. The one exception to this is when you are seeking to use a non-free copyrighted image under the fair use exception to the exclusion of copyright law. That is another complex subject area, but the use must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on the Public Domain - I shall look in there in the future. As for the question pop-up tab, I signed with the tildes both times but this time it seemed to work. Very weird. Must have been a glitch in the system. Thanks for the help on that subject, though.

While I'm here, do you know where new editors are needed on the Wiki? I'd be interested in looking at where there are people needed to work on places that need improving. Electrico96 (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Category:Media needing categories always has tens of thousands of pictures that will never be found and used for articles until someone categorizes them. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Electrico96: sure, check out the Wikipedia:Community portal.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Updating a page

I wondered I you would be able to help with something. The page below was marked with comments about "issues" in 2014 because there weren't any article links to it but is has since been updated with further information. Please would you be able to help to remove the previous comments on the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitivstory_(Intuitiv_Story)77.96.249.235 (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. There are still no article links to Intuitivstory (Intuitiv Story), so the orphan tag is still justified. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing this article to our attention. There was no evidence of notability and the article appeared exclusively promotional, so has been tagged for speedy deletion. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't know why this article was rejected... only given subjective responses

The following article was rejected:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Energy_Genesis

I wasn't given anything concrete about what was wrong with it. I even followed a similar article in structure to create this article to see that it fit with what Wikipedia was accepting. What is the issue with it?

ibroker Ibroker (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Ibroker but, as has been pointed out there, it looks like complete nonsense. Wikipedia only accepts articles with reliable independent sources.Charles (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Moreover there is an existing (but poor) article Energy Genesis. Maproom (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Nailing down the picture licensing permissions

Greetings, all--

Picture question.

I believe an article I've worked on (Dwayne Perkins) would be improved by the addition of a picture of the subject, but I have not been successful in finding pictures online which meet the Creative Commons licensing requirements.

I took the liberty of contacting the subject to see if there were any pictures that might meet the criteria, and he sent me a picture he had taken of himself. He told me that it was his picture, that he had taken it himself, that he owned the rights, and that it would be fine to use on Wikipedia.

So obviously we have the intent, but I wanted to know the best way to get the licensing aspect nailed down, to establish his granting of the appropriate Creative Commons license, his right to grant that license, and to do so in a way that would be as hassle-free for him as possible, even if it means that I assist with the legwork.

Marknashtx (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Marknashtx. If Perkins is willing, then by far the quickest and easiest way is for Perkins himself to open an account at Wikimedia Commons and upload the photo, stating that it is a photo he took of himself. It should be given a descriptive file name like "Dwayne Perkins 2016" for example. Once he does that, the photo can be used freely, but he must do this himself. There are other methods, but they are slower and more bureaucratic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"start"quality article help needed

Hi, I caught up on some comments and concerns about History of the Jews in New Zealand as a wiki topic. It was suggested that the headings get more succinct (like other similar topic sites that were, um, higher quality). I also saw the information on the rating of a "start" article and realized that my edits were often just getting too detailed, and the tone was too chatty and "un-encyclopedic." I tried to streamline title headings. I could go on, but I think that's part of my problem. So I will be trying to study up on what's needed to improve the quality. I guess I am not sure if I am really asking a question or apologizing here for making work for other editors. Carolynimhoff (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The most obvious thing wrong with History of the Jews in New Zealand is that it has no lead. Every article should start with a lead section that summarises the rest of the article. Creating one may not be easy. Maproom (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that the article is coming along well, Carolynimhoff, but agree that writing a lead section should be your next task. Currently, there are eight content sections. Write a sentence or two briefly summarizing each of these sections, and arrange them into several paragraphs. Perhaps a paragraph each for the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries might work. That will improve the article greatly. There is no need for any apology. Your work here is useful and appreciated. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both! I confess, I can't figure out how to format a lead section so that the content box is under it. Studying other articles doesn't show me what puts the content box where it is? I guess I should, as they say, read the manual. But I really appreciate the feedback. Carolynimhoff (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The contents box automatically puts itself just above the first section header. Maproom (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Mohammad Taqi Khalili

I reviewed User:Afgemb/sandbox and declined it, saying that it duplicated Draft:Mohammad Taqi Khalili. I asked them please not to create multiple copies of drafts on the same subject. (Creating multiple copies of drafts of the same article seems to be a very common new editor mistake. Is there any thought on how to minimize this annoyance?) I received a request for help from User:Afgemb (with no text except their user name and article name, but recognizable). What I see is that the sandbox has now been replaced with a redirect, so that there is only one article. Will anyone else comment on the draft? There are currently three references, one of which is an official biography, a reliable but primary source, and two of which mention him in passing but do state who he is. Since he does appear to be ipso facto notable by his status as an Ambassador, is this enough, or are more references needed? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon. I do not believe that there is any presumption of notability for ambassadors. They need to comply with notability guidelines. There is an essay called Wikipedia:Diplomatic notability which discusses the matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Wickipedia re Elizabeth Montgomery

In the wickipedia bio of Elizabth Montgomery there is no mention of her appearance in The Twilight Zone in 1958 with Charles Bronson in an episode entitled "Two" 2601:19D:401:83A5:DD70:B120:87DF:D3E2 (talk) 00:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Either discuss this on the talk page, Talk:Elizabeth Montgomery and provide a reliable source, or edit the article page with a reliable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The place to mention this is on the talk page of the article. However, that episode is listed in the "television" table of the Elizabeth Montgomery#TV and filmography section. Please spell article titles correctly, and provide a link when discussing one, if possible. There is no need to sign section titles. I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 00:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Uploading own picture with my face in userpage

Most Wikipedians don't upload their picture like facebook. But I have seen that few userpages have the user's picture. Has there been any case, where a user faced problem outside wikipedia where his picture (uploaded in Wikipedia) was downloaded and misused? Captain Spark (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Captain Spark. I have heard of a few such cases, mostly in connection with a wider pattern of harassment of the editor. I have my own picture posted and have done so for years, and have never had a problem. I think that few editors have such problems. If you intend to disclose your real (legal) name, i think it unlikely that a picture would cause a problem -- if, however, you will not be disclosing your real name, posting a picture could have the effect of revealing your physical identity. Remember that an image on a user page must be released under a free license, or be in the public domain; fair use images may not appear on a user page. Therefore, if you once upload and post such an image, anyone may legally use it anywhere for anything, provide that they attribute it correctly. DES ^(talk) 15:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, step right up to buy your DESiegel coffee mug and Cullen328 t-shirt. As if anyone wants to buy stuff with photos of grey-haired encyclopedia writers on it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

My First Article

I created my first article. Please see if it's proper . Name is GFA First Division League — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joymenezes (talk • contribs) 08:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Getting tagging to work for a task force?

I created WikiProject Insects/Hymenoptera task force to try to get some organization to the far-flung bee and wasp pages, but I can't seem to tag under the parent project's code: {{WikiProject Insects|class=GA|importance=low|Hymenoptera=yes|Hymenoptera-importance=top}} (see the Bee talk page for an example of failed implementation). There is another task force under the parent project, and I don't see anywhere in the code where they have tagging specified. Where do I go to make the template work? Did I not form the task force correctly? M. A. Broussard (talk) 12:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

How can my article be found on Google?

I tried searching my article on Google but I couldn't find it. The article exists. Please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joymenezes (talk • contribs) 16:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Joymenezes (talk) 16:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Google will find it eventually - there is nothing you can do but wait - sometimes they find it quickly, other times it is 2-3 days. - Arjayay (talk) 16:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Some items are not archiving using LCSB3. Why ?

Hello. While fixing some talk pages in order to empty Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded‎, I have encountered some items that are not archiving (while the rest of the page archives correctly).

link	?	last writer	date
User talk:Crest of London	Done x	MediaWiki message delivery	2015-11-24T13:59:01Z
User talk:Darth Newdar	Done x	MediaWiki message delivery	2015-11-24T13:55:08Z
User talk:IBS101	Done x	Pldx1	2016-02-15T10:53:37Z
User talk:MetzMaboo	Done x	Pldx1	2016-02-15T11:01:12Z
User talk:Mrbutter	Done x	Pldx1	2016-02-15T11:02:09Z
User talk:NoseNuggets	Done x	Pldx1	2016-02-15T11:03:50Z
User talk:PodPedia	Done x	Pldx1	2016-02-15T11:06:57Z
User talk:Recury	Done x	Pldx1	2016-02-15T11:20:50Z

For many items, archiving could be forced by providing a date. And by rewriting this date according to "00:00, 00 Month 2000 (UTC)" with the right number of spaces. But the remaining ones are more resistant. What is wrong with them ? Thanks in advance. Pldx1 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Moved atop to follow the local custom. Pldx1 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

solved Pldx1 (talk) 18:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Sindhi Association of North America

I reviewed Draft:Sindhi Association of North America and declined it twice on notability grounds. User: Anarejo then posted to my talk page:

Sindhi Association of North America (SANA) Sir this is the largest community organization of Sindhi Diaspora in the world. It is 32 years old. It is a grass roots, membership based organization. It has been regularly holding largely attended conventions every year in US or Canadian cities plus numerous regional & chapter meetings. It has held several conventions & conferences in Sindh, Pakistan too. SANA is a vastly respected organization. It has played important role in human rights, democracy, women & minority rights, education, health & other fields. It is followed by thousands of followers on Facebook. One can easily search it on internet & check its credentials. References: All the references in media section (18 links) are from outside, independent sources. Most are from Pakistan's largest English language newspapers & some independent papers & blogs. There is a large reference material in Urdu & Sindhi media too that is not included here. The youtube channel link carrying hundreds of SANA videos does not belong to SANA. It is an independent channel. There are also two book references where SANA has been mentioned. Pl reconsider your decision. You may ask for any information. Thanks

On reviewing the draft and the comments, it appears that the real problem is that the author didn’t put the references that they are citing in the References section. Also, Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter are not reliable sources. The author should move the listings from the organization’s own web site to External Links, should drop the non-reliable sources, or move them to External Links, and should move any reliable sources to the References section, and cite them in-line. Does anyone else have any comments for the author?

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

How do I see where an article I've created is in the review process?

I submitted an article for review on Feb 19, but can find no evidence it has been reviewed, or where I can find out where it is in the queue. Can you direct me? The site is for NEXTracker, Inc. Thanks very much.Mary Bufe (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You haven't submitted the draft for review. Click on the Submit button to submit it. However, since you are a paid editor, you should expect that, when you do submit it, you will get reviews that are not easy. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Multiple copies of drafts?

I am asking this here to get input both from experienced editors and from inexperienced editors, as to why a particular mistake is so often made by inexperienced editors. When I review a submitted user sandbox draft, I first check whether it has a title and content, so that it is worth moving into draft space because it has a chance of being an article. (That is, it isn’t a test edit, blank, in a foreign language, etc.) If it has a title and content, I try to move it to draft space. Usually I move it to draft space, but not infrequently I get an error message saying that the move could not be done. I then look for a page with the same name as I tried to move the sandbox to (in draft space), and I see that there is indeed a declined draft in draft space that is almost identical to the sandbox, both the work of the same editor. My question is: Why do inexperienced editors often create a new version of the draft in their sandbox rather than just editing the existing draft in draft space? I assume that it is a good-faith error, not an attempt to game the system. Is there some way to reduce the frequency of this error that annoys the reviewers? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not surprised that this happens. Most new users seem to think that the way to improve Wikipedia is to create an article. Unless they are unusually good at reading documentation, they are unsure how best to do this – maybe they should use their sandbox, maybe they should use a draft. So they try both. Maproom (talk) 16:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the general assumption. Most new users think that the way to improve Wikipedia is to create an article. This starting assumption is unfortunate, because creating an article is difficult, and the repeated declines are discouraging, and this decreases editor retention. Eventually, after several declines, they give up. I wonder if there is some way that we can publicize better that there are other less frustrating ways to help Wikipedia. I don't think however that they are trying both in the sandbox and in draft space. They seems to think that new articles can only be created in the sandbox. When I encounter the multiple copies, the history is that the copy that is already in draft space was moved there by another reviewer and was declined. Then the new editor creates another copy in the sandbox. So there seems to be an assumption by new editors that they have to start in the sandbox, and they copy-paste the draft either from Word or from Draft space back into the sandbox. So my question is: Why is this such a common issue? Is there an assumption that Draft space is a junk file and articles should begin in the sandbox? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

However, I was trying to ask for responses from inexperienced editors as to whether they can explain why it is so common for them to create a new copy in the sandbox after the earlier one was moved into draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been trying to find an old discussion about this - but failed. If I remember correctly, there is a perception that a sand box is the editor's "own" space, and that draft space is where things are "marked", so, if the paper sent for marking is "failed", one goes back home and re-writes one's essay.
Many new editors only want to write a new article, (often about themselves or another non-notable subject) and experienced editors waste time reviewing these. I think the creation of new articles, by new editors, should be controlled. Initially, there were thousands of notable subjects without articles, but now, with over 5 Million articles, these are much rarer. Enforcing the need to be autoconfirmed, would avoid off the cuff articles, by totally inexperienced editors, reducing the time-wasting, that annoys experienced editors, leading to editor retention problems (Wrong venue for a rant, I know) - Arjayay (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

As an inexperienced editor, I have to say that finding out how to move a page at all is a non-trivial task. It took me half an hour after I figured out it was possible to actually get a page (which I had misnamed on creation) moved to an appropriate location. I seriously considered just creating a new page because I was getting very frustrated with the lack of clarity on numerous help pages. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of important how-to/explanation pages that are simultaneously overly long, written in obtuse (to newbies) language, and that lack key information for new users to implement the stuff. I also must admit that, with the sandbox link at the top of the page and no sign of a draft anywhere, I actually have no idea how I would even go about creating a draft, whereas I could try some stuff out in my sandbox. This sort of thing is probably what lands you with numerous drafts of articles. M. A. Broussard (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

How do I fix format of references?

Hi there,

Someone (Robert McClenon) has advised me to "fix format of references" on Draft: Enock Maregesi but I didn't understand him. I sent him a message but I don't know if he got it because I am failing to trace it!! Can you please assist me correct any mistakes on Draft: Enock Maregesi? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Enock_Maregesi

Thank you so much,

Jenny Patranella (talk) 20:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jenny Patranella, you had all the references repeated below the automatically generated Reflist, I have removed them in this edit - take a look at what I did to fix it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled. The original poster wrote: "I sent him a message but I don't know if he got it because I am failing to trace it!!" I advised her on her talk page to ask for advice here, at the Teahouse, and here she is. Look at your talk page and you will see that I got it and replied. I will be putting a welcome message on your page with many links to policies, guidelines, and help pages for her reading. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggesting a topic

I'm the author of a therapy approach which uses LEGO Materials to help young people with autism learn to communicate and interact. I am working on a second book on this topic, and noticed that there is no reference to LEGO-based therapy, autism and LEGO, etc. There are a number of groups internationally, but especially in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, who are currently using this approach. I wanted to know how to suggest this as a topic, but I don't think I should be writing the article because of the conflict of interest. There are a few outcome studies and book chapters published which I can give references for(some I've authored, but there are others as well), in addition to a treatment manual published by Jessica Kingsley Publishing. There are additional journal articles and manuscripts pending, in addition to my own, so this does seem to warrant some attention. Respectfully, Dan (Daniel B. LeGoff -- my name IS a coincidence). 96.235.171.218 (talk) 19:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You are correct that you can't write the article yourself because of the conflict of interest. However, this is why we have WP:Requested articles. There you can ask for another editor to write the article about the therapy approach. We have a lot of younger editors, and I'm sure there are Lego fans on here. There are also some autistic editors, so somebody is bound to be interested enough to help you out. If the topic is being studied and written about like you say, it should meet notability. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

How do I request articles for deletion?

I am trying to request an article for deletion, but I cannot find where I need to go to do so. Could I please be given a link to where I should go to request articles for deletion?

Thank you, Ethanlu121 (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The various processes are at Wikipedia:Deletion process. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Ethanlu121, it might be helpful if you mention what article you are concerned about and what reason your reasons for deletion are. Specific answers can be offered when specific information is provided. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Liz. Please identify the specific article, and other editors here may have thoughts as to which of the various deletion processes is applicable. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

What to do about broken links in an article?

Hi All :-) I'm going through some articles to clean up, edit and update, and I find that some of them have quite a few 'broke' wikilinks. Perhaps the pages existed at one time and are now deleted? I first try to find a suitable link, through different spelling, but if I can't, what I have down is just removed the link so it's plain text, with perhaps inverted commas "" around it if it is a name? Is this correct or should I leave the 'broken' red wikilinks? ThanksKalyana108 (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kalyana108. The page to read is Wikipedia:Red link. In sum, they are not broken links but links to article that do not exist and invite creation. As such they belong – that is, when an article should be created. Red links to topics that clearly do not warrant article should be removed, e.g., because the subject is not notable, but otherwise they are a 'feature not a bug'. Please go back and return the red links unless you are fairly certain they did not belong. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, thanks for your help there. I will go back and add in the links so that they are marked as invitations to create. Appreciate your help and explanation. Cheers. Kalyana108 (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

How to enter references & external links?

Re: Sindhi Association of North America (SANA):

Could anybody please post here how to cite references & how to enter external links?

Thanks,

Anarejo (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Anarejo and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at your draft at Draft:Sindhi Association of North America, some advice come to mind: Wikipedia is generally not interested in what organizations have to say about themselves. We are interested in what others have written about them. Your References section seems to contain materials produced by the organization itself, while it should be the other way around. The materials in SANA in Media and Book Mentions seem like the kind we want as references. Namely, we want reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

As to how to properly format them, refer to Help:Referencing for beginners. You should focus on references for now, external links (to the organization's official website, etc.) are only topping and generally a very small part of the article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Finnusertop. Let me work on it.

Anarejo (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Trying to avoid speedy deletion

I just started writing an article and I have been notified that it may meet the criteria for 'speedy deletion'. How do I avoid this?

Hoxton fuller (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Hoxton fuller and welcome to the Teahouse. It's good to follow instructions. If it's your first article, some advice can be found at Wikipedia:Your first article. It's also good to work on your article as a draft before moving it to the mainspace of the encyclopedia. Right now your article, Nimia, is in the mainspace so it's considered an encyclopedia article and should conform with those standards. For some advice about what the specific problem it was tagged with means, read Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Finntopuser. Thank you for the help. I did read through the Wikipedia:Your first article. I guess what I am having trouble with is understanding what is deemed 'credible'?

Hoxton fuller (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hoxton fuller, I think the problem is significance rather than credibility. It's credible that a company specializes in video licensing - many companies do, after all. But it's not a very significant thing to say about a company. But because many, many companies are in this market, it doesn't make any of them particularly interesting. Microsoft makes the most used operating system, that's why it's significant. Apple launched the first commercially successful smartphone. See - important companies are known for something else than just being another company at a market. If there is something special about the company, chances are that it has been written on a lot, too, so there would be ample sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Hoxton fuller. There is only one source provided for this article, namely the GeekWire reference. Maybe this is sometimes a reliable source, or maybe not. When I read the specific source, it seems likely to me that this coverage was generated by a company press release. If so, (and I invite the input of other editors), then that source does not establish notability, because it is not independent. The general expectation is that multiple, independent sources will be provided, and in this case, we have only one contested source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

How do I give a credit to a photographer that is not in Wikipedia?

Hello. In my first article about the Cenotes I could't give the credit to my partner-photographer, as the picture in his. How do I do that? It wouldn't take his name, Bill Milligan/Solocaribe.Com Yndiana Montes

198.85.236.234 (talk) 19:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You haven't told us which article you are talking about, and you have no contributions from this IP. We have no article called "The Cenotes" - we have Cenote and Cenotes (album), but neither seems to match what you are talking about. So I cannot look and see what picture you are talking about. But in general, we do not credit artists where their pictures are used: when the picture is uploaded, the artist should be credited; and unless it has already been publicly released under a suitable licence, the copyright holder (whether the artist or not) must explicitly release it - all that information will continue to be available on the image's page. --ColinFine (talk) 21:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

However, in some cases a credit can also be included in the image caption. Indeed some images specify in their releases that such a credit is required. A photographer or other image creator can be credited by a name, or by a link to the creator's web page, or both. DES ^(talk) 23:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

As stated in WP:CREDITS "Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article. It is assumed that this is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page."
I do not think that we accept images that require any greater attribution than the appropriate credit on the image description page. - Arjayay (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Arjayay: The community thinks we do: Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 13#Concerns about imposed conditions of use. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out Finnusertop
That was a 2010 discussion, about what could be allowed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license, not what was automatically allowed, or what had to be allowed.
Moreover, I see no definitive conclusion to that discussion (which was really about just one picture) and we have not seen fit to change the guideline in the intervening 5.4 years. IMHO WP guidelines take precedence over inconclusive discussions - Arjayay (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Arjayay it was about fair use of a non-free image. The lesson learnt was that when you go asking for permission for something you don't have to (fair use), you'll end up with restrictions rather than permissions. Even non-free use should not impose attribution requirements that spill over from the file description page into the actual article, but - it seems - they do. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

How do I create a new section in an article that already exists?

I tried unsuccessfully to update the entry on Niyi Osundare in 2015 and didn't really understand why the update was rejected. What I would like to do now is to create a section listing the author's literary prizes and awards. What references do I need to be able to do this? Is it sufficient to create a link to the website of the prize or do I need to quote a tertiary source (this could be a challenge if those sources are not easily accessible)? Wunmi SegunWunmisegun (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Wunmisegun. The only edits you have made to Niyi Osundare was two edits to add works to the list of publications. If you tried to add a new section, you don't seem to have saved it successfully. This may be because you didn't hit the "Save" button (did you pick "Page Preview" instead?); or if you had an external link in what you added, the software may have objected to that. If it wasn't one of those possibilities, I don't know what happened. You add a new section by editing the section before (or the whole page) and inserting a section heading (between two or more pairs '=' signs, depending on the nesting depth of the header). For awards, the prize's own website is probably enough, as it is an uncontroversial fact that somebody did or didn't win an award; but not awards are notable, and should be mentioned in the article. Don't just add a link to the website, but a proper inline reference (which will contain a link): see referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

how separate reference to author and editor?

Should I list the editor as author of article introducing real author's book? I see no other options. Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, TBR-qed. I think you need to give more explanation. If you are talking about citing a Wikipedia article, then Wikipedia articles are usually the result of many people collaborating, most of whom may not be identifiable: see Citing Wikipedia. If you are talking about something else, then please explain what you are trying to do, and for what purpose. --ColinFine (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the obscurity. Max Weber was author of Economy and Society. Guenther Roth was editor and wrote introduction. I want to refer to both Weber's text and Roth's introduction. Please tell me how.TBR-qed (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi TBR-qed - The {{cite book}} template provides for this situation. From the template guide I think this arrangement will be suitable:

Citing a chapter in a book with different authors for different chapters and an editor

{{cite book |last=Bloggs |first=Fred |editor-last=Doe |editor-first=John |title=Big Compilation Book with Many Chapters and Distinct Chapter Authors |publisher=Book Publishers |date=January 1, 2001 |pages=100–110 |chapter=Chapter 2: The History of the Bloggs Family |isbn=978-1-234-56789-7}}

This renders as:

Bloggs, Fred (January 1, 2001). "Chapter 2: The History of the Bloggs Family". In Doe, John. Big Compilation Book with Many Chapters and Distinct Chapter Authors. Book Publishers. pp. 100–110. ISBN 978-1-234-56789-7.

There are other permutations on the Template:Cite book page if this one doesn't fit. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi again TBR-qed I found a better way to do it! You add "contribution" and "contributor" parameters for the Introduction and its author.

{{cite book|last=Weber|first=Max|title=Economy and Society|editor-first=Guenther |editor-last=Roth ||contribution=Introduction |contributor=Guenther Roth |date= |publisher= |place= |page= }}

Hope this is satisfactory. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the second option is better here. The first is more for an edited book that is a collection of chapters written by different authors, whereas this is rather a different situation and ideally you want the editor's name to appear at the start of the reference if that's who you are citing. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Bye Bye WIKIPEDIA

In consideration of all the absurd deletions that my work during the last two years has recently suffered I have decided to delete all and every word and images that I have posted on Wikipedia on T'ang Haywen. The observations made never took into account that I manage the archives of the artist and own the copyright on his work. Recently the deletion of a full gallery of images - most of them of works in museums - led me to understand that wikipedia is in fact made for its editors I will start a website on the artist away from this "community" of idiotic censors Chinaparis (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It's too bad you thought Wikipedia was an appropriate website to use to market your client. Perhaps you now realize that our mission is not to do that for you. --Jayron 32 11:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Chinaparis, you should be made aware that you don't necessarily have the power to delete all material that you have contributed to Wikipedia. As it says below the edit window, "By clicking the 'Save page' button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

And if you keep making mass deletions like you have done today, breaking the WP:3RR rule, your account will be blocked, saving you the bother of leaving - Arjayay (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Army Kinematograph Service article

Thanks to all who replied and acted to help. PSPAULFSARGENT (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)