Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 351

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 345←Archive 349Archive 350Archive 351Archive 352Archive 353→Archive 355

How is Wikipedia financed?

How is Wikipedia financed? Mister-smith-GS7 (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Mister-smith-GS7. The Wikimedia Foundation which operates Wikipedias across many languages as well as many other sister projects is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization and is funded through donations. Please see wmf:Ways to Give. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The links in the previous post are exactly right, however, it is worth adding that the contents of Wikipedia – the text you see and the images you see are provided almost solely by volunteers.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Entries in "Monmouth College Alumni" are not all arranged by their last name

I noticed when you go to the Category:Monmouth College alumni, some alumni are arranged by their last name but some by their first name. It should all be by last name. Can we fix this? and how?Rami.shareef (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Rami.shareef and welcome to the Teahouse. How pages are ordered in a category depends on what sort key (if any) has been specified on each article page. See Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort_keys for more detail. Edits might have to be made to easch out-of-place article to correct the sort key on that article. DES (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@User:Rami.shareef the ones that are not correctly sorted either have no {{Defaultsort}} or it has been filled incorrectly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Perfect! Thank you both.Rami.shareef (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Fix Sources Overkill

Hello,

Can someone please help me fix up the overkill of sources for the following page - Draft:Alex Gilbert to help make this page notable. Someone mentioned about the overkill of sources. Alot of these are reliable and just need to be fixed. Thank You! Dmitry DmitryPopovRU (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello DmitryPopovRU, I have taken a look and removed the unreliable sources, the non-independent ones and those that didn't provide significant coverage of Gilbert (say library catalogue entries for his book). Rather few remain. Huon (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I suggest the websites that you have trouble viewing. Try to watch them through a geo-unblocker. Thanks Huon, Thanks for your help! Dmitry DmitryPopovRU (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm Journeyman editor or Yeoman?

After completion of my 4000 edits I changed my service badge from "Journeyman" to "Yeoman", but one user reverted it saying that you did not completed 1 year yet so you are not "Yeoman". But I have seen many users show service badge only on the basis of number of edits and not years. Some service badge needs completion of 4-6 years, but still those users show it just on the basis of number of edits without completing said years. Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 09:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Human3015, I use {{Service awards}} to keep it simple and (semi)automatic. With this template you simply put in the date of your first edit, your total number of edits and select the style of "badge" you want to display. The only ongoing maintenance you need to do is occasionally update your edit count. The "rank" depends on both the time and edit number achieved - so one year and 4000 edits would give you the "Yeoman" badge. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Human3015. If you read WP:Service awards you will find at the beginning, "These awards are unofficial – displaying the wrong one carries no penalty (except possible disapproval from other editors), and displaying the right one does not indicate authority or competence." In your case, another editor has expressed disapproval. My friendly suggestion is to wait until you have met both the time standard and the number of edits standard, but you can do whatever you want in this area. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I recently created a page, Secrets (Tiësto and KSHMR song), and I'm having some problems creating references to the chart websites using the singlechart template. I think it may be because of the umlaut diacritic in the "artist" parameter, or maybe even the word "featuring". At the moment the link directs you to a search page on the website, which seems to be fine - although rather inconvenient -and this issue seems to go for all of Tiësto's songs.

And for your information, I have already tried using the HTML version of the diaeresis and umlaut, but to no avail. -PotatoNinja(Talk to me!) 14:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@PotatoNinja: It looks to me like it's not the Ë in Tiësto, but the template syntax that's causing problems. Checking the syntax over at Template:Singlechart, it looks like there is no ref= parameter, since the template generates a reference itself. You've got such a parameter in yours (and two of them are for references to unrelated sources anyway); try removing that and see if your problem goes away. dalahäst (let's talk!) 01:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Dalahäst: I was actually referring the "Hung Medien" websites above, although the billboard links are also obviously messed up (I will fix them later). It seems to be an issue to do with the way the template generates the URL, and this seems to go for all of Tiësto's songs using the singlechart template.

linking from Wikipedia articles to draft article

My draft article has been submitted but not yet accepted. Can I link references in existing articles to it?Kerrisdalian (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kerrisdalian: Welcome to the TeaHouse. The answer to your question is generally no. By convention, wikilinks between articles must be in the same "namespace", which in this case is the article one. I would wait until your draft is accepted, and then start creating those incoming links. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@Kerrisdalian: I want to make sure I'm not confusing you - links from a draft to existing articles are fine, but links from articles to drafts are not. In other words, if you're working on Draft:Superman's cape, you can link to Superman and Aerodynamics from there, but you should not link from Superman to your draft. I hope that makes sense. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks; I understand.Kerrisdalian (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Identical problem on several articles

Several articles I have worked on have mentioned Royal College Colombo, calling it 'prestigious'- puffery which I have since removed. Is there an effective way to find all articles which mention this quickly; this looks like a deliberate form of promotion. Thanks, Rubbish computer 17:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish computer welcome back. I have moved your question, which I don't know how to answer, to the top where it will be seen. Usually people who ask the question in the wrong place are new, and I know you've been around a while. Please be careful because we want you to get an answer.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee I asked the question on my mobile and it went to the bottom, which was beyond my control. I also can't paste on my mobile, so I couldn't move it; I should change my username to 'Rubbish computer and/or mobile'. Rubbish computer 21:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

[1] has all the articles that link to that page. I agree there's some dodgy ones, like Latin says "Some schools adopt Latin mottos such as "Disce aut discede" of the Royal College, Colombo". Joseph2302 (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Joseph2302 Thank you for informing me and Vchimpanzee thank you for putting this at the top. Rubbish computer 21:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish computer this problem with posting on The Teahouse on a mobile sounds like something that should be reported to WP:VPT.
And thank you Joseph2302. I was expecting the answer to be a bot that can spot puffery.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting with the alumni at List of Royal College Colombo alumni, an article I had no idea existed. Rubbish computer 22:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Since it appears a stock phrase has been used in many iterations I've found, "prestigious Royal College Colombo", you can at least target those with an internal search of the phrase in quotes and you can probably find all others using "Royal College Colombo" prestigious -"prestigious Royal College Colombo" (you could do the same using Google but with the inclusion of site:en.wikipedia.org). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit Thanks! Rubbish computer 23:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
All gone - Arjayay (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Arjayay: Thank you, I as going to come back to it. Rubbish computer 14:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you able to help? I really don't understand,

I even showed what I had written to a publisher and a professional editor, who told me he thought the article was very well written and not at all reading as an advertisement–so I need some help in understanding how to get this very deserving organization a place on Wikipedia. Can you help? Thank you most kindly. Draft: Global Scribes Inc ScribesoftheWorld (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello ScribesoftheWorld and welcome to the teahouse. I am sorry you have forund the process of drafting a Wikipedia article frustrating. I don't know what you told the "professional editor", or what sort of audience he had in mind. For an organizational brochure Draft:Global Scribes Inc might be very well written. But not for Wikipedia. We need neutral test, such as might be found in a refernce work about the organization. look at some of our existing articles about organizations, for example International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement or Free Association of German Trade Unions. The draft currently includes such test as:
  • " Global Scribes facilitates healthy, culturally-enriching relationships between young people within an environment free from politics, religion, causes, and socio-demographic segregation. The unique program takes the participant on global journeys through the written word, visual arts, dynamic interaction, and consistent interplay across multiple virtual platforms–Fun, Education, Focused Passion and Play Intertwined."
    • Who says it is unique?
    • This sounds like a mission statement from the organization, not a neutral description.
  • "global scribes submit creative works ... reflecting their personal passions, culture and the life they lead."
    • Terms like "persoanl passions" convey a value judgement in Wikipedia's voice, which is not acceptable. Any opniosn must be those of a named and cired entity outsie of Wikipedia
  • Furthering the goal of global collaboration, global scribes learn Broadcast Journalism by actively participating in the process ...
    • Who says this furtheres that goal?
    • Again the tone here is one of praise and advocacy, not meutral description.
I woul be happy to discuss this furthe with you on your talk page, or mine, or at Draft talk:Global Scribes Inc. DES (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much, David! Okay, Will give it another go–and ask for your feedback. (no, the publisher knew this was for Wikipedia) –and you are right I did that that one statement from a document from them. Okay. I'll try again. thank you SO much for pointing out specifics– Kind regardsScribesoftheWorld (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Many people fail to grok that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and would fail to judge content on that specific basis. Thinking of Wikipedia as a page on the interwebs, as many people do, would give a skewed perspective of what is "appropriate". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you TRPoD!ScribesoftheWorld (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Page view statistics

On the Main Page and elsewhere, page view statistics, which were being updated daily, have stopped at 10 June. Does anyone know why? Rubbish computer 16:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This appears to no longer be the case so never mind. Rubbish computer 21:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Preventing Drafts from Appearing in Search Engine Results?

Hello, I would like to prevent user space drafts from appearing in search engine results. I've placed the noindex template at the top of my drafts but the text still appears in search engine results. Perhaps I added it later, after the search engine combed for pages? This is the right template to use for this purpose, correct? Thank you for your thoughts. Kekki1978 (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kekki1978, welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that you are refering to User:Kekki1978/Draft3:Rick Shutter. That includes both {{noindex}}, and {{userspace draft}}. Both of these should add the __NOINDEX__ "magic word" whcih instructs search engines not to index the page.
The documentation for {{noindex}} says: "Note: major search engines should respect the NOINDEX tag, but it may take days or even weeks for content already indexed to be removed from them." So it seems to me that you ahve done as much as you could to this end. See also Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing. DES (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Which page, search engine and search is this about? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@DESiegel: Ah, yes, thank you. The info from the documentation is very helpful. Kekki1978 (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: I periodically use Duckduckgo and Google to see what they yield for my username. I do see pages which currently contain the noindex tag but I assume the tags were added after the pages were already indexed. At this time, I don't have a sense of how much time passed between creating pages, adding the tags, and seeing the results in searches, and whether there's a difference between the two search engines I've used. That would be interesting to see. Kekki1978 (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@Kekki1978: Some of your userspace pages have a template with noindex, some don't, and some pages have been deleted. If Google gives access to the version they cached then they say when it was cached. DuckDuckGo doesn't appear to give access to the cached version or say the time but specific searches may reveal when they cached a page. I cannot say something more specific without knowing which pages it is about. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Protection

Do you have to be an admin to add a protection padlock to the top of the page? TeaLover1996 Talk to me ☏ 09:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: You have to be an admin to actually protect a page. Adding a protection template is an independent action which can be done by anyone able to edit the page but it should only be done for pages which really are protected. The template may detect if the page is not protected and omit to display anything in that case. If you want a page to be protected then see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Can I open an article for my father?

Hello all,

My father is a brain surgeon. Although he is not internationally renown, he has a bit of reputation here in Turkey. At least I want to open a page that is in Turkish. Since I am new to editing/writing articles here I wanted to get some advice.

Best, elasolova

Elasolova (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Elasolova: If you want to write an article in Turkish, you would need to do at Turkish Wikipedia, English Wikipedia only accepts articles in English. Every Wikipedia has it own guidelines, so I'll mention the ones for English Wikipedia.
The main thing is whether there is significant, independent coverage about him in reliable sources (books, newspaper articles, journals, web content)- if there isn't then he won't pass WP:GNG. If you think he does, then be aware that you have a conflict of interest, and so I would strongly advise reading WP:COI, and also Wikipedia:Your first article for guidance on how to write articles well. After that, if you want to create an article, I would advise using Wikipedia:Article Wizard. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the sources you use don't have to be in English, so if there's lots of sources in Turkish about him, you can use those on here, as long as you write the article in English. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead after a tag placed on Draft article ?

Hi, I am creating my second article. I have created a Draft version first, a user placed a comment of notability when page had only 6-7 lines. Now that I have improved and added the content to the article with many references from published articles. How to know that whether the improved article is in compliance to the guidelines or where I am going wrong ? article is Draft:Soulflower ... if you could show direction. Thanks a lot!!!Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vivek.bekhabar, welcome to the Teahouse. The comment added to Draft:Soulflower on 3 June was not the actual review. "general notability or WP:CORP" in the comment refers to Wikipedia:Notability and WP:CORP. It appears that most references either don't mention Soulflower or only mention the gallery and not the company. The page is still waiting to be reviewed and the reviewer will examine the version at the time of the review. You can continue to work on it and if it's declined then it will probably be possible to make changes and try to submit it again. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Thank you so much for your inputs. I will recheck the references vis-a-vis content. Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Multiple deletion nominations

Hi, there's currently a few articles for albums compiled of songs performed on the TV show Glee that don't meet notability guidelines or pass WP:NALBUMS, so I've decided to put them up for deletion. While I've nominated articles for deletion before, I've never done more than one on a singular subject at a time. Would I have to nominate each article for deletion individually, while giving the same reasons each time, and asking people to contribute to 4/5 deletion discussions, or is there a way to nominate multiple articles at once? Thanks, Azealia911 talk 14:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Azealia911. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou! You guys always have the answers, you're a real help to the community! Azealia911 talk 14:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
However, Azealia911 do read the cautions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion linked above. Unless the pages are pretty closely related, and it is quite likely that anyone with an opnion on one will ahve the same view on all of them, doing a joint nom may be a mistake. DES (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Number of Portals in an article?

Greetings, I have checked the MOS, archives and at Wikipedia:Portal and am wondering if there are guidelines on the number of portals for any individual article. Some articles have none (Pope John XXIII), others have 6 or more (Pope Francis). Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JoeHebda. The number of portals is determined by consensus among interested editors. My suggestion is to add a portal or two to the biography of the highly notable pope of half a century ago responsible for Vatican 2, and that you should suggest deleting the least relevant portal for the current Jesuit Pope. Boldness might suggest deletion of a portal without discussion, but on a highly viewed article, early discussion towards consensus is always advisable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Cullen328 for your answer. After I asked this question, with further investigation I found at the MOS/Layout, See_also_section a brief mention that As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. So if a Portal is already included within a Navbox template (usually with the below parameter), it should not be repeated in the SA section (and could be removed).
Then I found at WP Tip of the Day (which I am updating from time-to-time) an entry for Tip / Portal, for June 25th. That tip contains a link to Wikipedia:Portal page. On this page, the section Portal, How to add portal links to articles explains in detail the where to place the Portal(s).
Being bold, I plan to add another paragraph to this section including information about the adding and removal of portals, based upon your answer above, since this is currently missing and is helpful to know. Thanks for your answer as it helps to explain the process for reducing what may be excess portals in an article. And yes, I understand the benefit to starting a Talk page discussion prior to Portal removal to prevent misunderstandings. Cheers, JoeHebda (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Editing a page

Hi

I am the press officer at Peterborough United Football Club - one of our former players' has a wikipedia page that contains a lot of false, inaccurate details. I want to rewrite this page and update it with stuff he is now doing. But everytime i go to edit the page, I am told I am violating it.

Is there an easier way to send the text that I want to use on the page somewhere and they can upload it?

The page is here which i wish to edit...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Fry

Theeditorphil (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Phil. Albeit, that is not a good article – one on a living person with no sourcing whatever despite being here since 2006 and being editing by many different people, but what you did in your two edits, whether intended or not, was to blank almost all the content, leaving the page in this state. Is that what you meant to do? That had the appearance of vandalism and objectively made the article a cipher with no content and some incomprehensible code on the page and so you were reverted – once by a human being and another time by a "bot" (an automated program that is taught to recognize edits that look like they were intended to harm). Since it appears you are here with a conflict of interest, what I suggest is that you go to the article's talk page: Talk:Adam Fry, and detail there your suggestions for the content. As intimated above, it is very important that sources are cited for content (as lacking here), so please keep that in mind in your suggestions. For example, for a particular fact you suggest, it might read not unlike: "As of 2015 he plays X position for X team... etc., which is verified by this source ______". The sources should ideally be reliable, secondary sources independent of him, like newspaper articles and the like. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
You cannot choose the text to add to Wikipedia, and removing all the current text and infoboxes is not the solution. If you have text supported by reliable sources then that can be added, however given your conflict of interest, it is preferred that you do not directly edit the article but suggest changes at the talkpage, see WP:COI.
It appears it's also been put up for deletion, although I'm pretty sure WP:NFOOTY says it should be kept. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Supposing I read a random page on Wikipedia about any subject and there were missing or inefficient sources in the page content and when I go to edit that page what would be the way to do it? Maybe a good method would be to go to the relevant web pages that list details that refer to the subject mentioned on the page or cite books that I might know about that mention it if I have one to hand to look it up. Just learner 20:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just learner (talk • contribs)

Adding photos and publishing an article

I just created an article that I will like to post, I also have a photo that I will like to add, how can I achieve this. Omogbe (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Standard photo advice follows:
  • If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
  • If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Omogbe hello and welcome to The Teahouse. A simple way to describe the advice given above is that if you did not take the photo with your own camera yourself, it might not be appropriate for you to upload it and use it. If you did take the photo or know the person or company who did (and who holds the copyright may not be the person with the camera), you (or whoever took the photo) can give permission for the photo to be used for any purpose, including commercial purposes, without specific permission being asked, as long as attribution is given.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Question?

I know this may seem a daft question but what is the integrity of wikipedia? TeaLover1996 Talk to me ☏ 12:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: I'm not sure what kind of answer you have in mind but see integrity or wiktionary:integrity for the general meaning of the word. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I think he wants to know how easy it is for the community to spot a sock...? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
TeaLover1996 hello and welcome to The Teahouse. The way I interpret your question is that you want to know how reliable the information is. The information is as reliable as the sources used, and the people who added the information. If numerous reliable independent sources can be found under "References" or some similar heading or headings at the end of the article, the article has a better chance of being reliable. We are all volunteers and none of us know who is really an expert in a field or whether the people adding information know what they are doing. At the same time, there are many of us watching articles and recent changes for obvious vandalism or for people not following guidelines or policies and adding informartion that appears questionable. With most articles, you can be reasonably certain people are looking for additions they believe should not have been made and removing them if something is wrong or better information is needed.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Inserting pictures and Hostbot operator

Hello i am a new member of wikipedia, and i would like to know how i can insert images on Wikipedia. and By the way, who is operating hostbotChukwuemeka Chisom Ezeilo (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chukwuemeka Chisom Ezeilo, and welcome to the Teahouse. I operate HostBot :) You can insert a small image into a Wikipedia article by using the following syntax: [[File:Title_of_image.jpg|thumb|Caption for the image]]. See the example in my sandbox. You can also read the picture tutorial for more detailed information. Cheers, - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 00:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Chukwuemeka Chisom Ezeilo more information can be found at #Adding photos and publishing an article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding new page creation for Raj

Hi Last one week onwards i am trying to create page for G Raj narayan. He famous person and leading entrepreneur in india.

But once i created its immediately delete from your side. I am not done any promotional activities or copyrights and also i added proper reference. but wiki administrator always deleting my page once i created. Please help what should i do? (10:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by G Raj Narayan (talk • contribs)

Your username suggests you are the person, in which case you shouldn't be writing about yourself, per WP:AUTO. Also, it was deleted today as a G11- unambiguous advertising or promotion by @DGG:. If you aren't the person, then change your username at Wikipedia:Changing username, and then read Wikipedia:Your first article and WP:NPOV. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

How can change my username ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by G Raj Narayan (talk • contribs) 11:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@G Raj Narayan: The easiest way is go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple, and request a new username that no-one already uses. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Raj. You say this was not promotional and did not violate copyright. I believe you when you say you think this but the objective facts are otherwise. As to promotion, the draft was unsalvageably promotional. This was not a close call but content that could be used as a textbook example of promotion. In short, it was a panegyric; a song of praise filled with glowing puffery. As to copyright, you may own the text, but it was still a copyright violation, because you were using it here but retaining non-free copyright ownership of it (as seen at your website). We cannot use non-free copyrighted content with the permission of the owner for one-time use but rather require a copyright release to the world under a free copyright license that is compatible with the free copyright licenses our content is (mostly) licensed under (or a public domain release). However, this content was unsuitable even if released. As to proper references, that would be to reliable, secondary sources, entirely independent of you, speaking about you in detail, and cited as sources – not a links section to your twitter feed and website and one citation to a company you are involved with. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Fuhghettaboutit,

Thanks for pointing out the concerns and your patience for doing the necessary background check, We did go through some entrepreneurs from India and other countries as well to see if we can modify the tone of the content and make it look less promotional (can you point out specific sections if any so that it becomes easier for us to edit). Also, It will be really great if you please give me some reference pages so that we can follow similar structure and get it sorted.

Will it make sense to add a free copyright license or remove the existing one form my website. We are totally clueless on this, can you give us some more details as how to go about this. Thanks.(122.167.241.136 (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC))

Does the 3rr policy still count if you are on a page that is being heavily vandalized

I have come across a page that seems to be a target for vandals, Would I be violating the 3rr rule for trying to protect a page? Jadeslair (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

nevermind, I just found the search box. I see this now Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_170#Should_you_keep_reverting_obvious_undisputable_vandals.3F Jadeslair (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Commercial info help

Can someone help me with adding info on a [commercial] to the entry on Ben Folds? I asked about it at talk:Ben Folds.20:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.16.72 (talk)

Thanks for your question. I have answered at the article talk page where any extended conversation is more likely to include participants familiar with the subject of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.163.143.131 (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

photo release template

I'm hoping to find a version of this template that I can send to the copyright holder of a photo, in order for them to fill it out online and return:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates/Consent

Is there such a template? Otherwise, what do you advise as the best way to proceed? Thanks for the help. Sleepy Geek (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Sleepy Geek:. The process for providing materials for free use on Wikipedia (and the free use that grants to other people everywhere) is outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Can I get a second opinion on some recent edits?

Hi there,

I made a small contribution to a page some months back and put the page on my watchlist.

I noticed that there has been a radical overhaul of the page, and I don't really know what to do.

The page is on a living person: Mark Pollock.

The most recent edits are genuinely good faith edits, and display an intimate knowledge of the subject (the recent editor introduces an event called the Run in the Dark, which was not previously referenced and is certainly worthy of inclusion, and also is able to provide a name for the "bionic" robotic legs that a subsequent Google search shows to be correct). So these recent edits are not vandalism or anything like that.

However, the overhaul removes all citations and references and deletes a vast amount of information.

I have heard of a debate on Wiki between "deletionist" and "inclusionist" points of view.

Is this what I am seeing here? Am I merely uncomfortable because I have some inner "inclusionist" tendencies and this editor has a "deletionist" world view?

I'd appreciate any advice.

Paul Dublin (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Paul all-though they may have added a couple of new valid points the removal of that amount of material without even an edit comment is still tantamount to vandalism. So yes it should be reverted... and it has been reverted already. It was also a copyright violation from http://www.oneyoungworld.com/counsellors/mark-pollock. If you think that the extra items on Run in the Dark etc are valid then I should suggest added them back (in a non copy vio way). Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Problem: Hide Page or Resolve Issue?

Hello!

This is probably a relatively straightforward question, but here is my situation: I created a wikipedia page for an economist (Robert F. Wescott). However, the text that I used was sufficiently close enough to text from another website about Wescott (that I own the rights to) that it triggered the CorenSearchBot to flag it as a copyright infringement. Now this page has several tags that identify the page as being potentially a violation of copyright. I am concerned that he might see it before this has been resolved so, a) is there a way to hide my page temporarily or b) is there a way to resolve these issues quickly? Happy to do either, just don't want anyone to see my messy wiki page for him! Many thanks Sgmansbach (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Quick answers: a) No b) Depends on what you mean by 'quickly'; but basically I would also have to quick answer that no, there is no quick way.
With the above quick answers to clear your mind a bit, the issue is not as simple or as "straightforward" as you may think. An Speedy Deletion tag (SD for short) are meant to express the concerns of a wikipedian about clear and non-negotiable issues of the article that said wikipedian think the article has, and ultimately to draw the attention of an administrator, in order to judge if the article indeed meets the Criteria for Speedy Deletion; if it does, the administrator boldly deletes the article. Any editor can, but most of us prefer to let an administrator remove the tag if the criteria is not met.
Now, I have done a not so quick review of the articles and, independently of the clear Conflict of Interest issue, it also has other issues, the most important one being about the Notability of the subject, as the article makes no indication about the relevance of its subject. That lack of indication of relevance, by itself, meets the criteria A7 for speedy deletion. Also, please note that even if you add some indication of its importance, the subject of the article can still be considered not notable, and erased after a proposed deletion, or via a deletion discussion
I see that you have made changes from the original article, the one that was heavily tagged for an SD. I think you are doing a really good job, and I may also do some changes in order to help you avoid the SD.
One last thing. It is not your article. It is of the community now. It worries me a bit that you said "my article". I understand that you create it, but when you clicked on the Save Page button, you released it to the public. And we all thank you for that --Legion fi (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
It may also help, Sgmansbach to get in the habit of thinking about not as "a page for Wescott" but "an article about Wescott". --ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Officer Candidate School (United States Navy) Page

Couple of questions regarding the captioned WikipediA page, they are:

(1) OCS has been located at Naval Station Newport, Rhode Island since 2007.- I'm not sure the above statement is entirely accurate since I was an Officer Candidate at the above location in 1965. And;

(2) If my memory serves Bob Kerrey, a Medal of Honor winner and US Senator was an Officer Candidate at Naval Station Newport, Rhode Island in 1966 or 1967. I would think he should be listed as a notable alum.

vern24.8.195.79 (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, vern. I have removed the '>' at the beginning of the lines of your comment, as they were making it hard to read. If you have suggestions for improvement to a Wikipedia article, the best place to make them is on that article's talk page - in this case Talk:Officer Candidate School (United States Navy). Looking further down the article, it says that the school was merged from two other schools, one of which was at Newport. However, it is lacking in dates, and (more seriously) the article is completely lacking in references, and is therefore in a sense completely worthless (because no reader has any way to check whether anything in it is correct). If you can add some detail to the history (or any part of the article) with citations to published references, you will improve the article immeasurably. But personal recollections are not acceptable as sources, because, again, a reader has no way to check them.
On the subject of Bob Kerrey, he is indeed notable enough for there to be a Wikipedia article about him, and therefore he could appear in the list of notable alumni - if there is a published reference to show that he is one. Again, personal recollections are not enough. (I looked at the article about him, but it does not even mention OCS, let alone have a reference for his attendance). --ColinFine (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

What are the basics of Wikipedia editing?

Sorry, but I'm a complete noob at Wikipedia. What are the basics of Wikipedia editing? How do I create a page on a new subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxRockets (talk • contribs) 17:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

FoxRockets, hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I took the liberty of moving your question to the top where it will be more easily seen. To learn about creating articles, read Wikipedia:Your first article. But you don't want to do that. Read about editing, try editing existing articles, and get used to the way we do things, because it's very hard for a newcomer to create an article that will be accepted.
Once you feel ready to start an article, the most important things to remember are making sure the topic you want to write about is notable, that most facts added to articles are supported by independent reliable sources that cover the topic in detail, and that you write with a neutral point of view. Primary sources or sources that don't cover the topic in detail can be used for non-controversial information once notability has been established. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Welcome to Wikipedia. You can create an article here: WP:AFC, Please make sure to source it WP:NOTE, make sure it is neutral WP:NPV, Have fun, write a great article, ask questions as you go. Don't worry, you can't break Wikipedia, we can fix everything you do lol I saw that somewhere. Jadeslair (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
off topic Note that for most pages, new comments go at the bottom. TeaHouse is the oddball. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

POV fork

The page Gwangju Democratization Movement appears to be Gwangju Uprising, from a different point of view, the former having been created from a redirect to the latter. What should be done about this? Rubbish computer 15:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree, I proposed a merge. There may be some POV issues when that happens. I can help with that if people agree that it should be merged. Jadeslair (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
This might be more complicated, there were proposed moves before. I just started looking at the talk pages. Just let me know how I can help. Jadeslair (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
It was moved before. The talk page for Gwangju Democratization Movement is a redirect. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gwangju_Democratization_Movement&redirect=no Jadeslair (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The two are not the same article, although they look almost the same. I haven't looked at the history, but I would guess that someone did a copy-and-paste as a POV fork, just as the OP suggests, or maybe by a new editor who thought that copy-and-paste is the way to give an article two titles. Copy-and-paste article creation in Wikipedia is never (or maybe almost never) allowed, but is commonly done by new editors who don't understand redirects, and occasionally by more experienced editors who want to create POV forks. There isn't currently a redirect. If the merge is approved, and it should be, one of the two titles will redirect to the other. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I've provided copyright attribution for the cut and paste fork.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing new pages

Hi, I just reviewed a page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_J._Puig I added many tags but more than likely it is Wiki Spam. I know I can just tag it for speedy deletion(most likely) but I also know that we should encourage new users. If you take a look at it would you say delete? or give them a chance to clean it up? Just looking for some thoughtful responses so I can contribute but not harm Wikipedia. Jadeslair (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The user was just blocked, so I guess that sums it up lolJadeslair (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, looks like they were blocked for undisclosed paid editing (being paid to create/edit Wikipedia articles, but not disclosing it on Wikipedia)- this doesn't necessarily mean their articles are terrible, although 95% of the time they are. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
You did well in trying to bolster a new user, but Mr. Puig is simply not WP:Notable. My opinion, and I've BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

How to properly cite an "In fiction" section?

Hi! I have a question for y'all: The "In fiction" section of article Omega Point has been entirely removed a few times by an editor for being unsourced. I have reverted each time and tagged with {{Unreferenced section}} instead. However, I am unsure how to approach citing this section because it is a somewhat obscure theological topic in that I am having a difficult time findings secondary references on popular culture appearances of the Omega Point. Do I have to go through each example as a primary source and cite the specific example where the Omega Point or similar concept appears? Would this be an acceptable (reliable) tertiary source for several of the examples: http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/omega_point ? I am aware of the page Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content, but it is not very specific except that there must be reliable sources. Could anyone give me some more specific guidance on how to cite this section or provide an example of a similar "In fiction" section that is well cited? Abierma3 (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Abierma3. It is really quite simple. Every single listing in the "In fiction" section of the Omega Point article must cite a reliable source which connects that work of fiction to the theological concept in a substantive way. If such sources are lacking for any given item on that list, then that item should be removed immediately, and not restored until such a reliable source is cited. Assuming that the source probably exists in the linked article is insufficient. Of course, you can read the linked article looking for such sources, and if you find one and read it yourself, you can add to the Omega Point article. Otherwise, eliminate them all. Verifiability is a core content policy, and we do not allow any form of original research. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is a reliable source for this topic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes it should be, Cullen, but the work itself is a primary source for its content. A simple page number reference to where the concept is discussed in the book should be sufficient. Note also that it is not in general true that every listing in such an article must have an inline citation. Only direct quotes and controversial or negative statements in a BLP are absolutely required to have citations. Other statements must have citations if they are challenged in good faith (or are likely to be challenged), but it is not well thought of to challenge a fact that one does not actually doubt. See WP:PROVEIT. (@Abierma3:) DES (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

adding better quality info to an article which is currently very light

Hi there I've got some useful info on university private presses in New Zealand I'd like to add to this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_press but the article is pretty skimpy and I haven't got time to improve it overall! Is it a good idea to add the info I have cos it's helpful, when it might look quite out of synch with the rest of the article? thanks! Elucidata (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Elucidata. I am not sure about terminology in New Zealand, but here in the United States, there is a clear distinction between a Private press and a University press. I suggest that you might start by writing individual articles about specific notable university presses in New Zealand that now lack articles, and perhaps create a list of such presses and a category for them. Broad articles should have a worldwide emphasis, and giving undue weight to material pertaining to one specific country is not advisable. That being said, I admit that U.S. editors are sometimes prone to do so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding political biases in sources, and assessment of reliability

Hi, is there any Wikipedia policy by which the partisan bias of a source ("liberal" or "left-wing", or "conservative" or "right-wing" in the most commonly understood parlance) is considered a factor in assessing its reliability? In particular, are "conservative" sources to be seen as inherently less reliable, or less likely to meet WP's standards, or for this to otherwise be brought into consideration?

If not, is it appropriate, in the context of discussions of the reliability of sources, to bring up the matter of partisan leanings? It seems to me like it might come across as poisoning the well, or otherwise signal to other editors about an attempt to "introduce bias" (read: challenge the bias of existing article sources/content).

(I note here that I've only ever seen such tactics used against "conservative" sources on Wikipedia, but I don't doubt it's possible it's gone the other way, and "liberal" sources absolutely deserve the same protections.)

74.12.93.177 (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be neutral Wikipedia:Neutrality_of_sources#Reliable_sources_may_be_non-neutral but the wikipedia article needs to be neutral. The last part is not negotiable and a core of Wikipedia's policies. The most important thing as far as sources seems to be its editorial policy. Do they fact check? WP:RS Jadeslair (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jadeslair, so that's more or less as I expected. My concern is more that I frequently see the bias of conservative sources mentioned in such discussions, and not that of liberal sources; this seems like it would have the net effect over time of instilling a liberal bias in articles, as explicit liberal bias is increasingly perceived as "no bias". This does, however, raise the question of who gets to decide what counts as "centrist".
But even that isn't really getting at the core of the issue - it's not so much the phrasing of the article that bothers me here (since it can't be that hard, normally, to rephrase a biased take on a subject in an unbiased way). Rather, I've noticed that bias in media is very often expressed in terms of the selection of aspects of a discussion reported on. That is to say, a biased source may choose to omit mention of certain facts completely in order to propagate that bias. If WP editors then reject other sources, including that information, as "biased" (in spite of proper fact-checking), the bias is then propagated into WP articles. 74.12.93.177 (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
74.12.93.177, I know you asked a general question but if you have concerns, you should bring them up on the article talk page and if there is a difference of opinion, ask about neutrality and sources at WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN. It often helps to have an editor who is not involved with editing a specific article offer their opinion on these matters. Liz Read! Talk! 17:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Here is my take on that. We take one subject, multiple sources should be used for that subject from both sides so that as many facts as possible are included. (if possible) Now on the "who gets to decide" question. That answer may not be so pretty. You are encouraged to be bold and edit an article putting as much accurate information as possible. Sometimes it is hard for an editor to see their own bias. So if your edits get reverted then you may need to go to the talk page and discuss the topic. Reach a consensus then edit again. After that, you may still run into some trouble, remain calm and be polite but discuss it, there are many avenues for discussion, here are some pages that may help you figure out how to navigate the process. Don't edit war: Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule, don't resort to sockpuppetry: Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts, seek consensus: Wikipedia:Consensus, Dispute resolution: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Jadeslair (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course, what could really bake the OP's noodle is the fact that WP is perceived by the centre-right as having an inherent liberal bias, which makes it pointless, in their eyes, to even try and counter. Hence there is a continuous tendential decline the number of editors willing to try to counter this. Thus making he bias even more inherent. Castrovalva (M. C. Escher)!!! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
This may be the case, I sometimes edit based on my news feeds so I bet what I edit is probably based on my own selective news feed. Of course when each side constantly hears or sees in the comments that a site is biased, ie Fox is not a credible source or NYT leans left, then that will transfer here. If they see that enough times they probably believe it. Also an editor edits a few pages that are stalked by the same person who reverts their edits then that person will probably leave. Thinking they are an authority on the subject, when in fact they may just be a troll. Jadeslair (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: FWIW, I am very much a "liberal" by any normal understanding of the word. I even used to share in the "reality has a liberal bias" joke that was popular during the Bush years (and I'm not even American). But more recently I've started to question many of my assumptions about media bias, thanks in part to the work of Jonathan Haidt and exposure to the filter bubble theory. I was especially concerned recently when I saw an infographic regarding the trust placed in various news sources in the US, sorted by the political affiliation of viewers, and it seemed like there was a clear attempt to represent that conservative sources are (a) generally less trusted overall, (b) greatly outnumbered anyway; and that conservatives are generally less willing to put their trust in the media than liberals. And FWIW, it often feels like WaPo and NYT are treated as the gold standard of reliability around here, ranking even above WSJ and the BBC.
@Jadeslair: Well, per the survey (journalism.org itself appears to be pretty reliable FWIW), self-identified "liberals" and "conservatives" in the US seem to agree consistently that NYT leans left. Unless you suppose there are other good reasons for political positions to correlate with media trust? (Not a rhetorical question, actually; a good answer seems like it would be very interesting.) 74.12.93.177 (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I am sure your survey is correct, I just meant that as an example. When it comes to media trust. I don't trust any of them. I fact check when ever possible and many times go to the site that would be opposite of it for another "opinion". When it comes to politics, if it relates, I pull up the voting record, I will also try to find a video of a quote. I see the media grab portions of quotes all the time and use them. It is just what they do, whatever fits the story they are trying to portray. I understand that they all pretty much lean one way or another and never have a problem with that. I just factor it in. Jadeslair (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Huggle

I've downloaded Huggle how do I enable it TeaLover1996 Talk to me ☏ 20:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You must be familiar with how to deal with vandalism before using Huggle (Huggle is not intended for new Wikipedia users) and for this reason, you must have rollback permissions on the English Wikipedia. From your edit history you don't appear to be ready yet. Theroadislong (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@TeaLover1996: Hello again! Roadislong is right that you require the Rollback permission. I seem to remember reading a request from you that was declined, if you return to WP:PERM make sure to just state your past request(s) and explain why you have fixed the issues raised there. Don't try to ignore them, MusikBot will find them anyway. If that is successful, follow the instructions at mw:Manual:Huggle/Installation to get Huggle running and then login like usual to the interface. Good luck! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 22:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
EoRdE6 the above is a red link because it is not on Wikipedia. I have seen how to do this but for now the only way I know is click here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@Vchimpanzee: Fixed, my bad. Just toss the abbreviation for the Wiki as the prefix (com: for commons, mw: for mediawiki etc etc) EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Please help me how can I write an article about a book and a new author ?

ConstantinVacheron (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, well you can start out by using the infobox for books. Template:Infobox_book it looks like you are an author, maybe even the author of the book. See WP:COI. If that is the case, I recommend you post on my talk page and ask for me to create one for you. I will do that if you do your research first. Is it notable, should be your start. WP:NOTE. If you are not the author then you can start with the articles for creation wizard. Wikipedia:Article_wizard Since you say "new author", the book may not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Jadeslair (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, ConstantinVacheron; probably, you don't. Wikipedia articles should be written almost entirely based on what people unconnected with the subject have published in reliable places such as major newspapers and magazines. If there has not yet been anything substantial written about the book or the author by independent people, then it is impossible at present to write an acceptable article, and you shouldn't try: that is really what the "notability" criterion mentioned by Jadeslair means. --ColinFine (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_351&oldid=1142564682"