Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 278

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 275Archive 276Archive 277Archive 278Archive 279Archive 280→Archive 285

Weighing in on a few of my questions.

Hey could someone please weigh in on these questions I asked on this page and that page please?

There's another question here, which I've already done my best to answer. If someone can answer with their opinion, that would be great! :) -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 08:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The first question has been weighed in. The second and third remain to be weighed. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I commented on the third question, C.Syde65. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay thanks! :) -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Taiwan Mobile Clouded Leopards

Header added by ColinFine (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to revise the subject of the page. State my question directly, I would like to change the original subject of Taiwan clouded leopard to fubonbraves, but couldn't find the way for the update. Would appreciate someone can help to solve out this issue.

Hello, person who hasn't signed their contribution (so I can't ping you: please sign your contributions on talk and discussion pages with four tildes ~~~~). It would have been helpful if you had told us the page you were talking about: 99% of the thousands of people who look at this page have never heard of the Taiwan Mobile Clouded Leopards. The answer is that you change the title of the page by moving it. If you do not have an account, or your account is too new, you will not have that option; in which case you can post a request at requested moves. I would have moved it for you, but as I cannot read Chinese, I have no way of knowing whether the website you linked to does indeed say that the Fubon Braves used to be the TMCL's. In keeping with the principle that every single thing in Wikipedia needs to be cited to a reliable source, please find a reliable source that says that the name has changed. (The article as it stands does not say this: It mentions "Taiwan Mobile", but nowhere says "Clouded Leopards"). In fact, not one single statement in the article is referenced, so the article may be deleted at any time unless somebody adds some references to independent reliable sources and thereby establishes that the team is notable. Please see referencing for beginners for how to go about this.--ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyrighted Books

Hi I am new here .. I have always been a fan of Wikipedia and what it is doing ...I recently published my third book ...All three books are non-fiction books about physics ... Physics being a subject that is full of unsolved problems .... The whole purpose in publishing was to get the new information out to the general public ...My ultimate goal is to get the info out in a series of television documentary's ...How do I present the information in Wikipedia without compromising future rights in other forms of media? Any suggestions? If I quote (citation) sections of my books within an accompanying article ... what are the future liabilities?Thank-you Professor Gravity (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Professor Gravity, welcome to the teahouse. Wikipedia takes copyright seriously, actually I just asked a question about it myself down below; to my knowledge there is no risk at all in talking about any copyrighted work on Wikipedia. I'm not a lawyer though so that is just one editor's opinion. The thing is we don't allow people to paste copyrighted work, regardless of permissions, anyway. It's OK to quote directly (with attribution of course) from a copyrighted work but those quotes have to be short blurbs not long extracts. That's the good news, the bad news is that you have a wp:conflict of interest regarding your own work. There are limited ways you can still start articles about your books but for the most part editors are strongly encouraged not to write about themselves or their own work. The goal of Wikipedia is to have a wp:neutral tone. So if someone starts an article about one of your books that article is meant to include both good and bad reviews. There are other ways you might use Wikipedia to expand awareness of your work. For example you might look at wikibooks: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page or other Wikipedia:Wikimedia_sister_projects. Hope that was useful, feel free to reply back if you have more questions. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Professor Gravity, one more thing occurred to me; I should have left you a link to this article: Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials It goes into more detail about how to donate copyrighted material to Wikipedia. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

List of types of subjects that wikipedia does not cover?

I noticed on the page talking about editing that it said, there were some subjects wikipedia did not deal with (as in no allowed). Could someone expand on this or direct me to further information please? Belladiaore (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

See WP:What Wikipedia is not. It's not a list as such - IMHO it is impossible to make an actual explicit "list of forbidden topics" because such a concept doesn't really exist here. If after reading that guide you have any further questions about specific examples please come back here and we'll help you figure it out. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

My article for Diana Widmaier Picasso has a message stating it has copyright content. However, this "copyright content" is in fact an extract from our own website. I have left a message on the discussion page but nobody has answered yet. Could anyone please tell me what can be done? Thank you DWPEDITIONS (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi DWPEDITIONS. You cannot retain non-free copyright and license it for our use. Outside of short quotations (marked as such using quotation marks and bearing an inline citation), content here must bear a compatible free copyright license so that our end users can take and reuse it, even for commercial purposes. That is why a license for use here, but retention of non-free copyright, is useless. What we would need to keep using such content is irrevocable release of the content's copyright to the world under a free license (or into the public domain), if the copyright owner is willing to do so. Otherwise, it cannot be used here. There are a few methods to do so. One is to change the copyright at the external website to show the content's release. For example, by changing the existing copyright notice at the bottom from "© DWP Editions", to:
The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
There's more information at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. By the way, it's clear from the context here and your username (which needs to be changed), that you have a conflict of interest in posting this material. Please review our conflict of interest guideline. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
And even if the copyright situation is resolved, there is no guarantee that the text will be of an acceptable tone for a Wikipedia article.--ukexpat (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

New user - am I on the right track?

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

I've been waiting several weeks for my first article to be re-reviewed after it was initially turned down.

Could someone take a look before its reviewed to check that I'm on the right track?

Many thanksNewcastleton (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Newcastleton: hello and welcome to The Teahouse. There is very little detail below the lead. What you have is just a bunch of lists with little additional information. Ideally, the lead should have no sources but should merely explain what is covered in the rest of the article, where there must be sources.
And not all the sources seem to qualify. At this stage, you should probably not use imdb because it is not considered reliable. I believe there are exceptions where imdb can be used, but not at this stage. You also have a blog as a source, and unless the blogger is a respected journalist or has a close connection with someone who has a reputation for verifying the information, this is not acceptable either. Other sources are not independent, which is not necessarily bad if the information is noncontroversial, but wherever you can do it, find something independent with a neutral point of view.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Tools

Hello, I am wondering If there are any tools on the wiki for checking links to see if they are spam, shock sites, etc.

Any suggestions?

Thank you,

Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 19:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Happy Attack Dog: hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Try WP:VPT since the people who know about such things post there.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Most of an article I found sounds like an advertisement, seems deliberate effort by supporters

I posted a question here last week, but didn't feel I got a satisfactory response. I'm concerned that a group of editors belonging to a certain new religion / cult have deliberately moved all material they consider negative to the "Controversy" section and softened it considerably.

If these editors are protecting this article from changes they don't like, anything I do will be reverted and the article will for the most part still read like an advertisement for the cult.

What is the procedure for asking editors to take a look at a biased article being edited by members of the group that the article is about?

Here's what I wrote last week:

"Unification Church" article looks like church's own propaganda I remember reading the article "Unification Church" (Sun Myung Moon, Moonies) several years ago, and it was more balanced, with controversial facts cited (with footnotes to reliable sources) throughout the article. It looks as though these have been systematically removed, and any hint of criticism sequestered to the "Controversy" section. The lead/introduction (and every other section!) now sound exactly like what we might expect from the Unification Church's own literature. Is this similar to what happened to the article on the similar group Scientology, which was manipulated by Scientologists to be more favorable and to remove all criticism (for which they were banned)? I've been using Wikipedia for years, but I'm pretty new to editing, so I don't have any idea how this should be handled. DrSocPsych (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@DrSocPsych: Here is the version of the article as of three years ago. I haven't done a close comparison by any means, but it looks like the current version includes more criticism (?). (The antisemitism part has been somewhat condensed, but now it is probably more in line with the policy WP:UNDUE.) I'd bring up any concerns you have at Talk:Unification Church to start a discussion there, like you have already done. You're welcome to edit the article yourself to improve it, but I'd work in series of spaced-out, small edits -- a better strategy when working with a controversial article, so one big edit doesn't get reverted wholesale. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Taking a look just now, it must have been more than 3 years ago that I ran across this article. In the version from 6 years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unification_Church&diff=261036993&oldid=261036791), the critical material was more representative throughout the article of what has been published. The criticisms have been entirely moved to one section, to some extent whitewashed, and the most damaging material has been removed in spite of it being cited from reliable sources.

DrSocPsych (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

DrSocPsych, have you tried being wp:bold and adding some of that info back in the appropriate place? If you have good references that is what matters. My advise would be to not worry about the church and how they might be coordinating work on the page. In my experience it's pretty obvious when someone is using a sockpuppet or otherwise editing with an agenda. Or if you don't feel comfortable making the change yourself you could document it on the talk page. IMO what really matters is not how the article was changed but are there important facts that are well supported and currently not in the article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Photo

How to put photo to in profile summary Alexbrown5566 (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Alex. Your question isn't clear, but I guess that you are wanting to add a photo to an infobox in an article. (Note that Wikipedia doesn't have 'profiles': what it has is neutrally-written articles about notable subjects, which are based entirely on information from reliable published sources. This might seem like nit-picking, but if you think of a page as a profile you are more likely to add unacceptable content).
Images can be a bit complicated, because they have to be uploaded before they can be used, and because you have to get the licence right. If there happens to be a suitable image already on Wikimedia commons, you can skip the uploading stage and just use that; but otherwise you need to make sure that the image is free to use, and upload it to Commons. This means that either it is in the public domain by virtue of its age, or it has been explicitly released by the copyright holder in a way compatible with Wikipedia's licensing (which means that anybody may use it for any purpose, even commercially). If you took the picture yourself, you probably own the copyright and can license it, but most pictures you find on the Internet are not freely licensed. (There are circumstances where non-free images may be uploaded to Wikipedia and used, but they are under quite strict limitations - see WP:non-free content criteria - and images of living people almost never qualify). See Help:Upload for all of this.
Once an image is in Commons or Wikipedia, it is straightforward to include it on a page. The usual format is something like [[File:name of file|thumb]]; but infoboxes often require just the bare filename and add the rest: you need to look at the infobox template page (for example Template:infobox politician) to see what it requires. --ColinFine (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I have a question about uploading a picture to a Wikipedia page

Um, er, I think I did it right . . . but it's not showing up? Is there a time lag between the upload and it showing up on a page? The page I was trying to upload to is for Karen E. Quinones Miller. Afam Sister (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Afam Sister. I took a look at the Wikicode for Karen E. Quinones Miller, and saw a file name that seemed to be the name from the hard drive of your computer. I took an educated guess as to what the equivalent file name might be here on Wikimedia projects, and bingo, the article immediately displayed a portrait of the subject. Happy to help, and please feel free to return to the Teahouse for assistance at any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I want someone to write a wiki entry for me - i've posted on my own talk page but no one responded

I wonder if someone can help me please!! I want someone to write a wikipedia page for me as I'm not sure I can do it myself. It is for a company called Charcoalblue. They are a theatre consultancy based in London www.charcoalblue.com and along with Haworthtompkins, they have just won the Stirling Riba Architectural award this year - (some links below) http://www.architecture.com/StirlingPrize/Awards2014/NorthWest/EverymanTheatrewinsRIBAStirlingPrize2014.aspx http://www.haworthtompkins.com/built/proj44/index.html. Haworth Tompkins have their own page which Charcoalblue should link to as they are frequent collaborators. They also collaborated on the National Theatre temporary theatre space - 'The Shed', on the South Bank SE1. This theatre was built whilst the 'Cottesloe theatre' was remodelled into the now 'Dorfman Theatre' which replaces it. Also a Haworth Tompkins and Charcoalblue collaboration http://www.abtt.org.uk/industry/charcoalblue-llp/ http://www.theatrestrust.org.uk/news/show/4775-charcoalblue-collaborates-on-visionary-recyclable-performance-venue-the-shed Could someone suggest this for someone impartial to write? Is that how wikipedia works? Would love to hear from someone. Best wishes, Loulou660 (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the correct place to list a request for an article to be created would be at the page linked here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Writing about a new article topic & scrapping a former article topic

Hello everyone,

as a newbie to Wikipedia, I would like to know if there's any place where I can see if anybody is working on or researching for a certain article? I'd like to write about a requested subject, but want to avoid a double submission or interfering with some one else's writing plans.

Second, I asked an experienced Wikipedian to "reserve" an article subject for me and I believe he did so. But now, after some extensive research, I feel unable to write it since I cannot find enough source information to create a substantial article. How can I step back from my "reservation" and make say that the subject is free for all? Thank You & greetings Lidanoir (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lidanoir. Searches are only in articles by default but after making a search you can click "Everything" on the search page to look for drafts or other mentions anywhere here at en.wikipedia.org. There is no reservation system and no way to tell whether somebody is preparing an article if they haven't saved anything yet. I guess you refer to the discussion at User talk:Tamravidhir#Your welcome & one question but I see no mention of a reservation there. The topic "Mozart cake" certainly isn't reserved in any way. If you think of the red link to User:Lidanoir/Mozart cake then anyone can make such a link by typing [[User:Lidanoir/Mozart cake]]. It means nothing about reservation. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
PrimeHunter Thank You. I somehow got that wrong when writing with Tamravidhir. Anyway, that makes it easier to pick article subjects :-) Lidanoir (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Can I edit a page about myself?

I am trying to update and improve the accuracy of an article about myself, but another user keeps deleting everything I write because much of what I am writing is just stuff I happen to know about myself and hence there is no citation. For instance, where I grew up and what projects I have directed (I'm a film and tv director).

Can I cite myself as a primary source?

Tomjstern (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Tomjstern. Welcome to the teahouse. I assume you are talking about changes to this article: Tom_Stern_(director) First, no you can't cite yourself unless you are quoted or published in a good wikipedia:source. That is what counts for Wikipedia references are that they meet the criteria described in articles like that one. I can understand how it seems logical that you should know more about yourself than anyone else. However, wikipedia editors are supposed to be objective and neutral. The thinking is that it's just not possible for anyone to really be objective about themselves. So for the most part you aren't supposed to edit articles about yourself (or your business, art, etc.). For the most part the best way for you to get changes to the article is to propose them on the article's talk page: Talk:Tom_Stern_(director) and to include good wikipedia:references to back up all your suggested changes. You can make some simple, basic changes, e.g., if your birthday is wrong or something is glaringly wrong or wp:vandalism but if it is a question of how to structure the content or what facts are supported by what references you have a wp:conflict of interest that pretty much skews any argument to be to the other editor. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Tomjstern. I recommend reading through both "Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest" and "Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide". Those should answer you questions about conflict of interest editing. Regarding using yourself as a source, you can't really do that since Wikipedia relies on reliable, published sources. Even if the stuff you happen to know is true, there is really no way for a reader to verify it so we would pretty much have to take you at your word, which is something we simply cannot do per WP:NOR. If you have any self published materials, then these could possibly be used per WP:BLPSELFPUB, but there are limitations as to how. A good idea, in my opinion, would be to try and find reliable third-party sources which support what is written in the article about you, and then post these sources at Talk:Tom Stern (director). This will give other editors the opportunity to look them over and add them to article if appropriate. You of course are free to join talk page discussions and make suggestions or requests, but I would try and avoid directly editing the article as much as possible because of your COI. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Tomjstern. Besides the reasons above, there's another reason why we require information to be referenced to a reliable source. Suppose you insert true information about yourself because you know it, and tomorrow or next week or next year a vandal comes along and changes that information. If it is unreferenced, there is no way a reader could tell that the changed information was wrong. But if it was referenced, a reader to whom it mattered could check the reference. --ColinFine (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your replies. I understand your answers and can see that holding Wikipedia to careful standards is very important. In this particular case the article about me was written years ago and is largely without citation, so what I'm trying to do is at least improve it by adding accurate and non-controversial information. So while I appreciate the need for strict adherence to policy when it comes to contentious and controversial subjects, I'm less clear on strict adherence when there is no controversy about the subject matter, and rather the focus is simply on the policy itself, with the end result being a sloppier and less accurate article. That would seem to be one of those "forrest for the trees" situations. But I will certainly abide by the Wikipedia protocol. Thanks very much. Tomjstern (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

using the categories

Hello. I found the category 1964 Deaths, but there are thousands of entries. Is there a way to combine it with the other categories so I could get a list of British writers who died in 1964? Thank you. 184.147.124.158 (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, there is a tool that will run this type of query for you. It's called CatScan and you can read more about it at Wikipedia:CatScan. Nthep (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Well thank you Nthep. Can I ask a followup about how to use it? I typed 1963 deaths and British writers into the categories box but results were zero and that can't be right. 184.147.124.158 (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Is there any specific article you think is missing? Many articles of dead people have not been placed in the corresponding death year category. I got 0 results for a search without subcategories but 4 when I included first level subcategories of Category:British writers with this search:
1963 deaths
British writers|1
The 4 articles are: Campbell Christie (writer), Gilbert Lawford Dalton, Herbert Samuel, 1st Viscount Samuel, Margaret Murray. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the trick of adding |1

CS Lewis is still missing though. But if I try |2 he pops up with several other names. I will experiment with different numbers. Thanks again 184.147.124.158 (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Adequately evidence of notability?

Hi,

I've just submitted an article and I've been told it hasn't been accepted at this time, as my submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability.

My question is, I've cited numerous sources, the vast majority being mainstream media websites, such as Reuters, where the article's core focus has been the subject in question. When I first started researching writing a wiki page, notability was my key focus, I've looked to substantiate and reference the page from as many difference sources as possible.

I've searched the archive and other areas for advice/direction but can't seem to find anything further, other than what I've done.

Thanks!Tfamelb (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey Tfamelb, welcome to the Teahouse! Did you miss out typing something there? You said "My question is," but then you never explained what your question is!
Don't keep us in suspense, please. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The question is, what more can the editor do to establish notability for the article in the editor's sandbox? I have to say I'm stumped. There are over 30 cites to 3rd-party sources, the officers of the company have been profiled by Bloomberg, soccer stars are using the company's products, etc. What more do we want? Looks to me like another instance of the general aversion to anything that could possibly be construed as advertising. Wikipedia can have exhaustive coverage of obsolete video boards and game machines, but we can't describe medical and health products because a company is trying to make a profit by selling them.
Anyway, what I would suggest is to leave a note at the Talk page of the editor who declined the submission. Be sure to thank them for taking on the thankless task of reviewing new articles, and ask politely what else could be done to establish notability. If you like, you can link to my comments here. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Margin1522, that's exactly my question/quandary; lack of sourcing I thought would have been the least of my problems. Much appreciated. Tfamelb (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Need help revise my article (Paid service)

Hi teahouse,

I need help for my article that's been rejected twice despite have provided some reliable sources from several Indonesian newspaper's online media and some other foreign sources including Yahoo! Finance. It was back in June and then back earlier this month. Please check the article "Fresh Grow International". It's about an Agriculture company in Indonesia. I'm willing to pay a contributor to fix it and submit to Wikipedia. Just let me know how much and how to pay because it's been too long. Thank you for your kind help. Erickbrandx (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Erickbrandx, and welcome to the Teahouse. I looked at the article, and it seems to be a company that is doing very good work and it might be suitable for an article in Wikipedia. The problem is that the sources are all too close to the company itself. They are either press releases or "inforials", which seems to be a kind of paid public relations article. Plus some sources that I couldn't read because they weren't in English.
We need third-party sources that are independent of the company. Also, hiring editors to contribute to Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. So, as of now, I think this article probably won't be accepted. Actually, what I would suggest is to first try to get an article in the Indonesian Wikipedia. The editors there will have more information and be in a better position to write a good article, which would be helpful to us in writing an English one. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding pages to my watchlist en masse

By way of introduction, I've been reading Wikipedia for a long time. Once in awhile, I've even cleaned up some ugly prose, fixed some questionable grammar, or corrected a fact that was in error. I just created this account, because I plan on editing fairly regularly moving forward. I work in higher education, focusing mainly in the area of literature. I chose the name "Hallward's Ghost" in homage to my favorite novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray. Now that preliminaries are dispensed with, my question for The Teahouse is this: is there a way to add certain particular articles to my watchlist, en masse? I know how to click the star at the top (that was fairly intuitive) but I'm wondering if there's a way to add certain subset of articles (say, "books by Charles Dickens" or "19th century British literature" to my watchlist without visiting every single article one by one? Thanks in advance for your time in answering this question. Hallward's Ghost (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no way to add items from the kind of description that you gave. The best available is to somehow generate a list of titles and put them in a plain-text file with one title per line. Then use a text editor (for example Notepad) to copy the lines of titles, and paste them into Special:EditWatchlist/raw. That link is what you get when you visit your watchlist and click "Edit raw watchlist" at the top. It is possible to generate a list of titles in various ways, but they are most slightly tricky. One way is to copy the text from a category and edit it to remove any junk that might be included in the copy (such as the letters of the alphabet). Visiting Charles Dickens and clicking "Charles Dickens" in the Categories list at the bottom leads to Category:Works by Charles Dickens where you could click other categories and eventually end up with a list of titles. Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, John. And thanks for the list of links you put at my talkpage. I have tested out your idea about using the raw watchlist on a few Dickens articles, and it seems to work fine. I appreciate your assistance. Hallward's Ghost (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Akuressa Bombing.jpg Deletion request

Want to mark this File:Akuressa Bombing.jpg for deletion wrong license in Possibly unfree files (PUF) .Associated Press owns the copyright.Both the The Guardian and Telegraph confirm this. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/10/many-killed-sri-lankan-bomb-attack Photograph: Krishan Jayaruk/AFP/Getty Images http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/4973425/Suicide-bomb-blast-in-Sri-Lanka-caught-on-camera.html? Picture: AP . Here the file does not even credit Associated Press http://www.ap.org/company/faqs My edits removed citations.I am retiring .Trenchfighter (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk page to discuss a deletion of a "bold" contribution.

I added a paragraph with heading "Recent developments" to the "Entrepreneurship" page. The heading and the paragraph were deleted with the following edit:

"(cur | prev) 03:31, 25 November 2014‎ IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,501 bytes) (-763)‎ . . (→‎Recent developments: remove confusing, meaningless gibberish. This mumbo jumbo may be at best a niche, fringe idea and is not widely reported in the mainstream literature on entrepreneurship. Thanks.)"

Obviously i do not agree with the edit, due to the tone and because most recent developments about an old concept like entrepreneurship, are not "widely reported". The editor also seems to be not a specialist, regarding entrepreneurship, according to his profile. Entrepreneurship has however been subject to critique lately, therefore new developments, should be allowed for discussion. According to online advice from the helpdesk, a talk page to discuss the edit should be created. I am not independent, with regard to the issue, therefor, i was wondering if someone else could create the talk page, with an invite to editors and academics, who specialise in entrepreneurship.Mdpienaar (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mdpienaar. You tried to add material cited to an ebook published a few month ago and written by Marquard Dirk Pienaar. This book, to the best of my knowledge, has not been reviewed by reliable sources, or cited in works by other business experts. Your username hints that you may either be the author or editing on his behalf. Wikipedia articles should summarize what reliable sources say about a topic. I see no evidence at this time that this ebook should be considered a reliable source. Please familiarize yourself with our guideline on conflict of interest, and do your best to comply.
Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and you should avoid trying to scrutinize the credentials of other editors. We do not require demonstrated academic expertise to edit any article. As for the talk page, it already exists at Talk:Entrepreneurship. Every article has a talk page. You made a comment there a few days ago, and the other editor replied. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

How archived

my Talk page ? Many thanks. Trackteur (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The full explanation is at Help:Archiving a talk page, but basically, you can either do it manually (by creating subpages entitled User talk:Trackteur/Archive 1 etc. and copying the content across), or you can add a piece of code to your talkpage to get a bot to do it for you. If you decied to go with the latter and find you need a hand, I'd be happy to help you set it up. Yunshui 雲水 14:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Best regards and many thanks. Trackteur (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources requiring login

Hi there,

I'm working to edit my first page (Hypersexuality). In the article, there are a number of statements that are cited with medical journals or scientific discussions sitting behind a login. In one instance, it requires a paid journal subscription. In another instance, it requires membership to a scientific trade group. I feel that I cannot properly edit and critique what is written, if I do not have access to the underlying material, high quality as it may be. What is the policy on RS that cannot be widely accessed? Would the same be true for a newspaper that has a paywall? Rustandbone (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Rustandbone: Hey there, good question about sources behind a paywall. Editors run into these all the time, particularly for academic areas and when using newspapers. You need not ignore a source just because it cannot be accessed by everyone. This is also true for newspapers behind a paywall. Sometimes, you'll get a limited amount of text from the article depending on the service. If there's some information there, use your best judgement if that limited info is enough to add or source info to the article. But, if you do need access past the paywall, there are resources available on WP you might consider checking out, including The Wikipedia Library and Resource Request. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@I JethroBT: Thanks for your help. Can I ask an editor to defend a source's inclusion or prevent its removal by providing the relevant paragraphs in the talk section? I'm going through a lot of random factoids that seem to have piled up over the past ten years and some of them seem misguided. Rustandbone (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@Rustandbone: No need to ask another-- you are an editor just the rest of us. :) If you have concerns about certain claims in the article or the veracity of the sources, the talk page is definitely a good place to start. If you don't get a response, you can usually be bold and make whatever changes you think are best. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@I JethroBT: Thanks for the guidance and quick replies. Rustandbone (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
One more thing for Rustandbone it appears you asked for the information from the sources to go on the talk page. That's not allowed because of copyright. I sent the information once through the email this user feature. Make sure both you and the editor who can help yu have that feature activated. It should be on the left side of the user page for each of you.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Patrolling user pages

Hello Teahouse! While I've understood the goals of the patrolling system when it is used to check new pages in the main namespace, I'm not so sure to get why sometimes user pages are patrolled as well. For example, I've received a notification about the patrolling of a sub-page that exists under my user page. In which way marking that sub-page as patrolled helps other editors? ► LowLevel (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, LowLevel73. Patrolling of user pages is to ensure that they do not contain personal attacks, advertising, overt copyright violations, or other clearly inappropriate content. Such patrolling helps preserve the integrity of the project. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, Cullen328! ► LowLevel (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
You have brought up an excellent point LowLevel73 here in the Teahouse. I have found the reviewing of some of my sub pages to be a little unsettling, and so have transferred some of them into Word documents on my own computer. I understand the points brought up by Cullen, but in my head, the patrolling of user pages seems to conflict with the whole idea of assuming good faith. I am certainly in favor of preserving the integrity of the project and have a high respect for the answers provided by Cullen.
  Bfpage |leave a message  19:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Bfpage, thanks for your comment, I understand your concern. Personally, it's OK for me if editors patrol user pages, because I've adopted an editing philosophy that doesn't make me perceive my user pages as really related to me or as a personal resource. The reason why I asked the question was more related to the meaning of the "patrolled" flag, because I'm under the impression that, in some contexts, different editors attribute different meanings to it. ► LowLevel (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

What makes a good edit?

I want to improve my editing skills. What should I do to improve them? (Sterlite7 (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sterlite7: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I would recommend reading this, because an edit that changes categories is not a minor one. Other than that I don't see anything problematic. It's good that you take your editing seriously, that's a rare quality among new editors. :) Regards, --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Flag article as needing all of its information re-checked?

I found, on looking through the history of the Yaoi article that an editor had reshuffled and rewritten large chunks of the article, on some occasions deleting citations (but not the info that was theoretically in those citations). This damages the integrity of the article, because information isn't in the sources that are cited. I voiced my concerns here: Talk:Yaoi#Citations_removed but was referred here.

So I will ask - now that this reshuffle, rewrite and removal of citations has occurred, is there any way to flag this article up as needing all of its information re-checked against the citations? 110.20.234.69 (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings 110.20.234.69 welcome to the teahouse. It is possible and very useful to tag an article if you think it has claims that aren't supported by the references. You can add templates to articles like this one: Wikipedia:Citation_needed Templates are sort of like macros; they are little snippets of Wiki code that perform common functions. That template I linked to is the most common one for an editor to use when they want to challenge some claim in an article. However, based on what you've said I don't think you have appropriate justifications to tag that article. Just because an article has been significantly edited is not in itself evidence that the claims aren't supported by the refs. In fact it's common to significantly re-write articles and even at times to delete references. Editors often find that what was put in as a reference is really not relevant to the text. It could be a vanity link to someone's personal blog or business for example. There are a number of good reasons to challenge a reference. The best one of course is when the editor actually HAS the reference in front of them and can read it for themselves and tell whether it really supports the text. So if you have or can find some specific information that shows some claims aren't backed up then you can challenge them with templates and on the talk page but just the fact that the page has been restructured is not a compelling argument. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

During the restructuring, references were removed, but the information from those references was not. As an example, here you can see the removal of a reference for "salt and pepper", which is clearly visible in the source and which is an unusual claim that needs a citation. I am concerned that due to the restructuring, this removal of citations, but not information from those citations, was missed at the time. I have found some instances of this, which I have attempted to repair, with help, but I am concerned that there are more. Is there some non-specific way of alerting people that the citations at the end of a sentence might not actually be where the info comes from, and that the article needs to be checked and re-verified? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Oops, fixed this from PB&J, which is not in the cited article but has the same idea, to salt and pepper, which is. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, glad that was fixed. In general though you are quite correct, if you see a statement that you think is not backed up by the reference it's good to fix it or at least tag it and the most common tag is this: {{Citation needed}} So, for example: MadScientistX11 won the nobel prize in 2014 [citation needed] --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. While I think I could use [citation needed] if I found a particular instance of something which needed fixing, I'm just not sure about the article any more. Is there any way to say 'the sources in this article may not support what's being said in this article, and the whole article needs to be re-checked'. ? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes. The one that is the best fit for "all the refs are suspect" looks like this and goes at the beginning of the article: {{refimprove|date=November 2014}} I'm not sure from what you've said though that it's appropriate in this case. So far all I hear you saying is "this article has changed a lot and some refs have been removed" Unless I'm mistaken and there is more to your argument, that in itself is not enough justification to slap a refimprove tag on an article. I think it's better to go into the article and pick out specific important claims that aren't supported and use the needs citation tag or if you are going to put a tag on the whole article have a better argument than just that it's changed and some refs have been removed. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I asked if there was a general 'help!' flag I could set because I don't feel confident that even if I went through the article with a fine-toothed comb, (and had the time, resources and energy to do so) I would get them all. Unfortunately, someone has decided that because I have shown an interest in fixing the article, I must be the very person who caused the problem in the first place. Not sure whether they're just embarrassed that I found a problem, but it does make me wonder why I should bother. 110.20.234.69 (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the "refimprove" tag is your best bet for a general concern about all the refs for the article. But as I said if you put a tag like that on an article you should have a good argument. I haven't heard you give such a compelling argument. Not saying you don't have one, either you haven't expressed it or I'm being my usual dense self and am not hearing it. But you need a better argument than just saying "this article has changed a lot". You are an editor, you have the right to put the refimprove tag on the article if you think it deserves one but if you do you need to be prepared to back it up with a better reason than just saying the article has been changed a lot and you are uncomfortable with it. Otherwise another editor can just delete the tag. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Since I am not heavily invested in the article or Lionhead99's edits to it, embarrassment has nothing to do with my questioning the IP about his or her editing history. I also did not directly accuse the IP of being Lionhead99. But when one is dealing with the edits of Lionhead99 and/or an IP inquiring about Lionhead99's edits, I am going to be cautious on the matter...even if not expressing that caution on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not just 'the article has changed a lot'. It's that as a result of the changes, the ability of readers to check that the information comes from a source has been damaged. If the point of citing everything inline is to help everyone find what information comes from what source, then removing citations without also removing the info that comes from those citations creates the false impression that info comes from the source at the end of the paragraph, when it actually came from another source which was removed.

This creates an article which looks good on the surface, but doesn't actually say where it got all of its info from. In a way, this could be seen as accidental plagiarism - the article uses the sources' ideas without saying where the article gets them from. I think this is a good enough reason to be uncomfortable with the changes, to wonder if there is more accidental plagiarism that hasn't been picked up yet, and to ask for help. 110.20.234.69 (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello user 110.20.234.69. I would use the Template:Cite check. Happy editing! ► LowLevel (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Could I use Template:Cv-unsure? (If a 'copyvio' and plagiarism are roughly equivalent on Wikipedia...) It seems to fit in that I'm not sure where exactly the sources have been removed (just that I have reason to think it's likely that they have been). 110.20.234.69 (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The maintenance templates related to copyright violations have a very different purpose and in my opinion they should not be used in this case. If you are searching for a way to flag the article as needing a re-check of the citations/references, I think that Template:Cite check matches your request pretty well. ► LowLevel (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! 110.20.234.69 (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Technical: Could not figure out how to edit references

There are (two) broken links in the references in the Wikipedia article on the Washington Consensus. Links 19 and 21 both reference an article by Dani Rodrik (which is required reading for anyone wishing to learn about the Washington Consensus). In fact both are references to an unpublished draft which should be replaced by references to the published article. Google Scholar provides the correct reference as well as a link to a downloadable copy Rodrik, Dani. "Goodbye Washington consensus, hello Washington confusion? A review of the World Bank's economic growth in the 1990s: learning from a decade of reform." Journal of Economic literature 44.4 (2006): 973-987. http://faculty.washington.edu/swhiting/pols502/Rodrik_Washington_Confusion.pdf HOWEVER, I could not figure out how to edit the references to update the reference and the link. Clicking on the [edit] right after the references leads to a blank -- presumably I could add a new reference but thats not what i wanted to do. Asaduzaman (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Asaduzaman. I fixed the problem for you. The Wikicode that creates the "References" section of an article does not contain the actual content of the references. Instead, it includes a reference template, a bit of computer code which scans the Wikicode of the body of the article, looking for properly formatted and tagged inline references. So, the actual content of a given reference (author, title, publication, date, page number, and so on) is in the code for the body of the article, in the exact location where the reference is intended to appear. So, I searched them out, removed the old URL and replaced each occurrance with the URL you provided. Things look OK to me now, but please check my work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Move Paola del Medico

Move that someone to "Paola Del Medico", or probably better "Paola Felix", the name used by her for decades - for both see her official website. "Di", "Da" and "Del" are always capitalized in Italian names, unlike Spanish ones, eg.. The WP:IT entry suffers from the same problem. 115.69.63.229 (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:115.69.63.229 and thank you for visiting the Teahouse. We appreciate your visit but I am having trouble understanding your message. Are you sure you have left your message in the right place?
  Bfpage |leave a message  18:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know this, but the IP is saying "Del" is capitalized in Italian, and therefore Paola del Medico needs to be moved to Paola Del Medico. I can take care of suggesting that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. It may have been non-controversial, but the target article is not a red link and an administrator may have to perform the move anyway.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 Done. I've moved it to Paola Del Medico for now; there may be a case for Felix, but it depends on which name is more commonly used. I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Image Public Domain Question

I would like to know if the public domain status for this image is definite. File:WestBroadway_DorchesterSt.jpg A few weeks ago I inquired and was told that it did not have a date or author so public domain was questionable. Now I see that it is in public domain because it is a copy of a work of art. Would you please explain? Thanks. Kerry 50.187.42.92 (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Kerry, the WikiMedia Foundation (WMF) takes the line that a photograph of an old, public domain, two-dimensional work of art does not gain it's own copyright. This is based on a 1999 US court decision, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. where it was decided that copyright did not subsist as they were simply slavish copies of the works of art represented. However for this to apply the work of art copied/photographed has to be a public domain item in the first place. As File:WestBroadway_DorchesterSt.jpg doesn't contain any information that helps establish it's public domain status - for example - when it was painted? when it was first exhibited/published? who is the author? then the use of the {{PD-Art}} is incorrect. Nthep (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The editor who uploaded the image hasn't edited in nine years, so we are unlikely to get any more information from them. I agree with Nthep that we lack the information to be confident of the public domain status. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
To make things worse I can't find anything about this image online other than a few other wiki type sites where the same upload features. Reluctantly then I am forced to tag it for deletion if no other info about it is forthcoming. Nthep (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello user 50.187.42.92. I'm sorry for the difficulties about that image. I have not been successful in finding information about it but, in the process, I've found other historical images and photos related to those same streets in Boston. I'm leaving here the link to them, in case you are interested: City of Boston Archives. Cheers! ► LowLevel (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Doing a rollback

Hello Teahouse! Long story short:

  1. A few weeks ago, an editor with a COI tried to add big chunks of promotional contents to an article (original research, lots of references to the subject to promote, etc.). Their edits were reverted and the editor was blocked.
  2. After a few days, a new editor popped up and tried again to add almost the same stuff.
  3. Today, after editing the article to clean it up, I realized that it would be simpler to do a rollback to a previous, clean version and build from there.

My question is: can someone who has rollback privileges do a rollback? The article is Street marketing and the clean version that existed before all the COI edits is this one. Cheers! ► LowLevel (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi LowLevel. I haven't examined the content of the edits but anyone can revert to an earlier version in the page history. See Help:Reverting#Manual reverting. Rollback is a fast way to revert the last user's consecutive edits to the page. Rollback wouldn't work here when different editors have edited after the version you want to revert to. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello PrimeHunter, thanks for the clarification. I was erroneously under the impression that reverting to any earlier version required a special user permission. Thanks! ► LowLevel (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Can I upload the image or not

I am making an article of 2015 European Youth Olympic Winter Festival. I need the logo for the infobox and found it available for download in the official website. I know that it is copyrighted, but I am unsure that I can upload it to Wikipedia with non free logo tag. Can anyone tell me whether it is okay to upload it or not? Please explain it because it maybe useful for me in future uploading. Thanks. Griff88 (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse Griff88! You are correct. You can upload the logo to Wikipedia under a non-free image, however the use of the image must be in line with the criteria's listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. When uploading the image it must include a rationale to each article the image is used on. Remember the image uploaded must be sized in the low area as stated at WP:IMAGERES. ///EuroCarGT 06:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Another problem is the resolution of the logo is quite big (789x831), does it mean that I should upload with the original file, then size it to a smaller size to use with the infobox of the page? Griff88 (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes (Oh my...I misread that) No. On Average the non free image should be about 400px and no larger. However be sure the rationale is complete and nothing is "NA" or left blank. A link to the article the images is being used is also required with the rationale.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello Griff88. If I'm interpreting correctly the guideline at WP:IMAGERES, you should not upload on the Wikipedia servers the image at its full original size (789x831) and then showing a smaller version in the infobox but, instead, you should upload an already resized version of the image. If you upload a too big non-free image, it will be automatically resized by a bot within 24 hours, but I suggest to you to upload directly a resized version. Cheers! ► LowLevel (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright then. Thanks for the help Griff88 (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Upload a smaller image you have reduced first using an external program like GIMP (its a free program many editors use for this purpose).--Mark Miller (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

can registered user review new articles ? How ?

can a registered user of wikipedia review a newly submitted article(s), if it was not created by the user ?

where is information about how to do so ?

thank you Publico2020 (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Publico2020, welcome to the Teahouse and yes you can review newly created article if you are a registered user. You can use Wikipedia:Page Curation to do so. Also you can access the log of newly created articles here. When reviewing new pages you must strictly adhere to Wikipedia policy WP:CSD. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Submitting 2nd Article

A total newbie question, but probably an easy answer. I working on my first new article. I wrote it in my sandbox and then pushed the button to submit it, and am now in the period where I'm waiting for the article to be accepted. In the intervening time I may want to write another new article, but haven't figured out how to do so.

I tried to move my sandbox, but didn't have permission since I'm new. Do I have options for multiple sandboxes or am I doing things the hard way and I should be submitting them a different way.

Thanks! Rudy Geek (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rudy Geek. You can create additional sandbox pages. Open your current sandbox, and place a slash "/" at the end of the URL, followed by a nickname for your draft. It could be ""Article2" or any brief reminder. Hit "enter" and you will get a message that the page doesn't exist, with a choice to create the page. Create it, and you will see a blank edit screen ready to go. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I took a look at your first submission, Rudy Geek, and have some suggestions. Your references currently consist of bare URLs. Please read Referencing for beginners, and fill out those references. The second reference is to a Wikipedia article listing members of the National Academy of Engineering. We never use one Wikipedia article as reference for another Wikipedia article. We don't use user-edited websites as references. Instead, find his listing on the academy's website and use that as a reference. Best to spend some time on the current draft. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Page deletion

My page was deleted on the basis of copyright infringement, however, I am the administrator of the website where I got the content from. I was just creating a page for my organization. Kindly assist [[User:Mark Muiruri|Mark Muiruri]] (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mark Muiruri. Unfortunately, Wiikipedia can't accept text that is copied from organizations' websites. All text that is added to the encyclopedia is immediately licensed for anyone in the world to use, change and even sell. The text on your website was written by someone, and is the property of that person, or the organization if they hold the license to it. It's possible for the copyright holder to legally donate the text to Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials), but it's not usually worthwhile, since the text is often designed to promote the organization, which is not what encyclopedia articles are about. It's quicker to write a short, proper encyclopedia article, including citations to independent news reports, magazine articles, etc, about the organization to show that it is notable and to verify the information. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
But please read, and follow, our guidance on conflict of interest before trying to recreate a page about a subject where you are the administrator of the website. - Arjayay (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_278&oldid=1140227206"