Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 352

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 345←Archive 350Archive 351Archive 352Archive 353Archive 354Archive 355

Adding organization details

How can I add an organization details and contributions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MD Rashadul Islam Alif (talk • contribs) 20:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you expand your question please Jadeslair (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, MD Rashadul Islam Alif. I thought at first that you were asking how to put an "infobox" in an article. But looking at your user talk page, it appears that you have been trying to create an article about WFNI, an organisation of which you are the CEO. Wikipedia discourages anybody from writing articles about subjects they are connected with, as their conflict of interest is likely to make it hard for them to write in the appropriate neutral tone. But if you do want to go ahead, you need to read your first article, and I would strongly suggest you use the article wizard.
It is important to understand that every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article should be individually cited to a reliable published source - and most of it to sources unconnected with the subject. My advice if you want to write an article on WFNI is to begin by forgetting everything you know about the organisation, and find independent writing about it - articles in major newspapers or magazines, or books from reputable publishers (note that an article which is clearly mostly based on a press release from WFNI is not acceptable for this purpose, because it is not an independent piece of writing about it). If you cannot find such sources, then give up: by definition, the organisation is not currently notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) and an article will not be accepted however it is written.
If you can find a few such sources, then you can start writing an article entirely based on what they say. If an independent source talks about the "contributions" of the organisation, then the article can quote the source about them. If it doen't, then the article should not even mention the word "contributions".
If you can write a substantial draft article on this basis, then you can add some uncontroversial factual information about it from its own published sources, such as its website: things like places and dates. They still need to be cited to a published source, however. --ColinFine (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Image Uploading problem

I am trying to upload an JPG image to wikipedia page. But it is not getting uploaded. In edit coloumn, there is an option embedded file on top, from there I have given name to the file and again by clicking on the file I have uploaded image. Finally it is not displaying on Page.

So helop me on this regard11:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Srinivas sunkara (talk)

Hello, Srinivas sunkara. You have succeeded in uploading File:Vaddi Veerabhadra Rao.jpeg: the reason it did not display on the page Narendrapuram when you tried to add it is that you did not give the entire filename: you omitted the '.jpeg', but that is part of the file name.
However, I must tell you that the image will be deleted in a few days unless you give satisfactory copyright information: if you are the copyright holder you must say so, and explicitly license it under a suitable creative commons licence. If you are not the copyright holder, you must get the copyright holder to follow the procedure in donating copyright materials.
I must also tell you that the article Narendrapuram, having not one single reference, is liable to be deleted at any time. Adding references to reliable published sources is far more important and valuable than sticking a photo of somebody who happens to come from there. Please see referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Creating an article/ page of an organization which has been deleted earlier by Wikipedia

I want to create a page for an initiative which was earlier deleted by Wikipedia. Now the Organization and the initiative has got enough of other coverage in news as well and hence I want to create a page again. Please guide me how can I go about the same. Dhwani.14 (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Dhwani.14. I suggest you start by reading your first article, paying especial attention to the sections on notability. Then if you decide to go ahead, use the article wizard, which will let you create it in Draft space (where it will probably not get deleted unless it is a copyright violation). Once you think it is ready, you can submit it for review. --11:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Dhwani.14 and welcome to the Teahouse. The comment above is correct. You might also want to read this summary of our guidelines for articles. Please be sure to include enough references from independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Please be sure that the draft you write is neutral in tone and content. Do NOT copy text from the organization's web site, except possibly for short quotes marked as such and clearly attributed to their source, even if you have been given permission by the organization. Such text is very unlikely to have a neutral tone or be suitable, and Wikipedia requires a full release under a free license, wich is more than just permission for you to use the content. Happy editing. DES (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

My Wikipedia article

Someone has been editing my Wikipedia article and making changes and omissions that are damaging to me. When I tried to re-edit, I discovered that my page had been locked.

I corresponded at length via email with a volunteer but he was, in the end, unable to help me restore my page to what is truthful. What is my next step?

Thank you,

Robin Green (the TV writer/producer of the Soprans and Blue Bloods) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E8A6:CE00:3D66:48F:8AEF:1171 (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Robinloisgreen (I assume this is you, editing while not logged in). Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anybody can edit, and it is not your article (still less is it your "profile"), it is Wikipedia's article about you, which should contain only material derived directly from published reliable sources, but is not dependent in any way on your approval. Because of your conflict of interest, you are strongly discouraged from editing Robin Green. We are concerned that articles (especially articles about living people) are accurate, according to reliable published sources. I see that some of your edits have been to remove uncited information, and that ought to be all right: I think Logical Fuzz and Joseph2302 were wrong to revert your removal of several claims already marked as 'citation needed': I suspect that they did so because they were also reverting your unsourced additions.
What you should do is make suggestions for changes to the article with citations to independent published reliable sources on its talk page, so that an uninvolved editor may make the changes. --ColinFine (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@ColinFine:, if you check the history, I reverted their unsourced edits, and then removed all the unsourced content, see reversion and removal- I removed their unsourced claims, and the rest of the article's unsourced claims too. Please explain how removing all the BLP violations was wrong?
Also, User:Robinloisgreen got blocked as an impersonation account by @Jakec:, with a message about the standard procedure for confirming their identity. Therefore, using an IP is block evasion. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, Joseph2302 - I missed the following edit removing those items which you had just restored. --ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Joseph2302 the block was solely because User:Robinloisgreen appeared to represent herself as a specific well-known person, without having provided clear evidence of this. Since anyone can make such a claim, to protact that person the account was blocked pending such evidence. But the purported identification was the only reason for the block. Therefoe editing under an IP address, or a new name that doesn't imply that identification, is not block evasion, IMO. DES (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Notabilty issue

Hello, An article I am working on got a response from an editor concerning notabilty. When comparing to other existing articles, can not see the difference between the sources' notability. That is, can not understand why some sources are taken as notable while others don't. Article in progress: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omer_Dror Article in comparision:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yon_Tumarkin

Appreciate your assistance and time Mironit
Mironit9 (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello
I have removed empty spaces, as the lines were overflowing
to the content box
some senior editor will answer your question
best regards
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 09:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Mironit9, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've had a look at your draft. One of the problems is that your references were not formatted in a way to allow the reviewers to see what the sources actually were, and you had way too many repetitive sources from non-notable publications which caused further confusion. I've chosen the most relevant and useful sources and used them to reference the article properly. A lot of the most useful sources are in Hebrew, which I have to "read" via Google translation, but they are from reliable and notable Israeli media, e.g. Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Maariv, etc. They will need careful reading by a fluent Hebrew speaker to ensure that they verify all of the biographical details in the article, especially his birth name, his family's emigration to Israel, the schools he attended etc. This is required by Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. I'll leave some further comments on your draft which may be of help to future reviewers. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello Mironit9. You can use the |trans-title= parameter of the cite templates to provide an english translation of the titel of the article being cited, and the |quote= parameter to provide a translation of the relevant quote that supports the staement cied. These would help readers who do not speak/read Hebrew. DES (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

My additions are causing me to be threatened with removal as an editor

Howard Loring uses real people in his time travel novels, but after adding references to these people's Wikki pages, following the form already used in 'depictions in literature,' etc. I've been threatened with this message: "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Clara Schumann, Albert Einstien and other articles, you may be blocked from editing." What did I do wrong?Howard bellew (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Howard bellew:Most of your edits seem to be adding the same book- see [1], [2], [3]. Dare I ask, is this your book? Repeatedly adding the same links to pages can be classed as linkspamming. If this is your book, then stop adding links to it on Wikipedia, if it isn't your book, then consider adding other reliable sources to articles as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Howard bellew. The self-published books in question are not notable, and neither is the author. In my opinion, adding links of this kind is spamming, and I recommend that you stop. I realize that you may not have known that such links are unwelcome on Wikipedia, but now you do. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Howard Loring has two books out using real people and I added references on the first one first. I wish to add the second book as well but received the above message first. People in other books are listed in this exact way. What did I do wrong?Howard bellew (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Fine. I bought his books on Amazon but I guess they are not real books. I love History but I guess like minded people don't need to know about his references to Historical figures either. Thanks Cullen

Howard bellew (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Howard bellew (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


@Howard bellew: I'm sure that they are real books, The issue is this: major historiacl figures like Clara Schumann and Albert Einstien will be mentoned in dozens, perhaps hundreds of works of historical fiction, and often science fction and alternate history, and perhaps other genres as well. We can't possibly mention all of those in the articles, it would overwhelm them. So we either restrict such lists to a few of the very most significant, or omit a "dipictions in lterature" section altogether. If a b ook is not merely notable but quite influential, then perhaps it should be so mentioend. If you think the books by Howard Loring fit that mdescriptuion, then make a case on the talk pages of the article for including mentions. If the books are notable, particualrly if they pass our notability guideline for books, then an article about the books could be created, where it eould be appropraite to discuss the historical figues used. In general on Wikipedia, if you try to do something and someone else undoes it, and especailly if this happens twice, don't try to do it again without discussing the matter first, and obtaining consensus. See Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. I hope that makes things a bit clearer. DES (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, this sounds plausible but it just doesn't apply as other citations are present and that's why I contributed to each of them in the same form. No problem, just thought Wikki was an encyclopedia and this seemed relevant, my mistake.99.5.125.4 (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, this seems plausible but it just doesn't apply given other's works are listed, and that's why I made my citations in the same form used for each article. My mistake was in thinking Wikki was an encyclopedia as opposed to a sorta encyclopedia that made arbitrary calls that do not apply to all editors. I understand now, thanks; I didn't mean to clog up your article, and I certanly have no control over how many times major historical figures have been used in literature.99.5.125.4 (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, not trying to pile on, I incorrectly thought my response wasn't posted so I posted another. Again, my mistake.99.5.125.4 (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The existence of other inappropriate references in an article is not an excuse to add more. The references to a non notable book do not belong there. We know you cannot control everyone who mentions these people but that does not mean it becomes a free for all. noq (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
BTW, what other entries on these articles do you think are comparable? noq (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@Howard bellew: Many people have been mentioned in thousands or works of all kinds so of course Wikipedia often has to choose what to include. We prefer notable works, and articles should be about notable subjects. Blue links go to articles, red links don't. Consider Agrippa in popular culture after your edit. All entries have blue links except your own which is red for both book and author. The video game entry is too long but apart from that the other entries sound reasonable to me. But a fictional book few people know by an author few people have heard about does not belong in an article where lots of more notable works could be included. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I now understand your position and see that I misunderstood yours: I thought your mandate was to hold pertinent information relevant to your articles. I believe Howard Loring's works are for he writes Epic Fables, not just Time Travel books. For example, the book I was sighting gives an in-depth view of Roman warfare, Elizabethan politics and the inside world of 19th century Classical Music, it's development and meaning, certainly not the norm for the genre. Another example would be his latest book, also containing real people with current articles, and not the one I was sighting, which can be read backwards as well as forwards, and I would think this is relevant, given the genre.But what do I know? I just thought people interested in such historic figures should know of their use in such a unique fashion. But thanks, I bow to your guidelines.Howard bellew (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Listing the Christian Arts Museum of Ft. Worth on Wikipedia

Museums in Fort Worth are listed on your web site, The above referenced museum is in the cultural district of Ft. Worth, but is not listed as a museum to visit. How do we get a listing? Thank you, Ann G 204.16.80.30 (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

How to differentiate sectioning of notes and references for an wiki article

I tried to do this on the Solapur but couldn't Dongar Kathorekar (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

HelloDongar Kathorekar, and welcome to the Teahouse. See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: groups. DES (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey Dongar Kathorekar. Sometimes it may be hard to decide what to do when the help pages provide many possibilities. Let me just suggest one I think can be relatively easily implemented here with specific instructions.
  1. Go to the place in the article where the ==Notes and references== section header is, and make it into two sections, with Notes first and References after (make sure the Reference section retains the {{reflist}} template);
  2. Add underneath the Notes section header this template: {{Notelist}}
  3. For all the citations to sources you are using, that are placed with <ref>...</ref> tags, you need do nothing.
  4. For all the places you have used <ref>...</ref> for a note, change it as follows:
i) Replace the opening <ref> tag with {{efn| (that's two opening curly braces {{, followed by efn which stands for explanatory foot note, followed by a pipe symbol, located on most keyboards above the return/enter key).
ii) Replace the closing </ref> tag with }} and you're done; that note should now appear in the notes section,
but to give a more concrete example to avoid confusion:
iii) <ref>Note text...blah blah blah.</ref> becomes {{efn|Note text...blah blah blah.}}.
Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you dear Fuhghettaboutit buddy for your assistance Dongar Kathorekar (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Italic Titles

I have noticed that some titles of Wikipedia pages are in italics. Most of them have a secondary description inside parentheses___(). Why this is done and how? I don't remember which ones but I am sure i have seen 10 such pages. How did they create the main heading in italics? Mostly redirects in watchlist appear like that.Cosmic  Emperor  16:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It's done by placing the template {{italic title}} at the top of the page, which will italicize the title up to the first parenthesis (since words within parentheses are normally used to disambiguate pages on Wikipedia). The Manual of Style describes when article titles should be italicized. Cheers. Kolbasz (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Please note that several infoboxes (e.g. infobox album) automatically force an italic title, without the need for the additional template, as these infoboxes are only used on articles that should have an italic title. - Arjayay (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

help submitting an article

Hi there This is my first time creating a page on Wikipedia and I am wondering if someone can help me submit my content? I would really appreciate some help/guidance thanks EmesC (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@EmesC: Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! I see that User:Wardah786 left a comment on your talk page. Is that also your account? You should know that Wikipedia does not allow it's users to have more than one user account except in some rare circumstances (see: WP:SOCKPUPPETRY). If you are new to writing articles, I strongly recommend you to carefully read this: WP:My first article. Feel free to ask me anything you want to know on my talk page. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Editing 'Ohio'

Being a crazed 'Buckeye', I noticed several errors and omissions. How do I get the corrections made as 'Ohio' is edit locked? THANKS!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moravian1415 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Moravian1415: Nice to see a fellow Buckeye ;) The article has been semi-protected to prevent vandalism, which means that only autoconfirmed accounts may edit it. An autoconfirmed account is one that is at least 4 days old and has made at least 10 edits. You've got two options:
  • Seeing that you've made 10 edits, you can wait another couple of days or so until you become autoconfirmed.
  • You can request a change be made by leaving a message at Talk:Ohio and placing {{Edit semi-protected}} by your message. This will alert other editors that you've requested a change be made to a protected article.
Hope this helps! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @SuperHamster: - OH-IO!
Moravian1415 thanks for your visit to the Teahouse. I'm sorry to hear about you being a Buckeye, my condolances (GO! Michigan State!). But what I really want to say is that you could leave a message on the talk page of the article and ask another editor to make the change(s) for you. Your enthusiasm for editing should have an outlet and we don't want to hold you back from making good changes to the encyclopedia. SuperHamster I now understand the unusual user name you have since I often mistake hamsters for buckeyes...they are both brown and fuzzy. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  22:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Ohio buckeye aesculus glabra SuperHamster

A versus An

In this article First Baptist Church (Muskogee, Oklahoma), I have changed the opening sentence to say an historic as I believe this is grammatically correct. Would it be a historic in the US or is it the same as UK English in this sense? Thanks, Rubbish computer 17:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The American usage is "a historic" whatever. I am familiar with the usage "an historic", but not in the United States, so I assume it is British (rather than one of the other less common regional varieties of English). Since the church is in the United States, the article should be in American English unless a special exception applies. As a result, I think that your edit was good-faith but incorrect. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I did this on one other article and have reverted that edit. Rubbish computer 18:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I for one routinely use "An historic" and i have never lived anywhere other than the United States. I don't think this is a clearcut Us/UK difference. DES (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I would say "A historic" and I'm British- I think either is acceptable, and doesn't necessarily depend on where you are. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems most people agree that "a historic" is the proper usage. See: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/a-versus-an and http://www.theslot.com/a-an.html Abierma3 (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Blog written by staff of a research collections library

Hello I would like to strengthen articles on a number of topics, in some cases using links to blog posts written by research librarians and archivists. I understand the general rule about being very cautious about blogs. In the case I'm describing, the expertise of the writers is without question. What do you think? Regards, Elucidata (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Elucidata. The relevant passage of WP:BLOGS says
"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
So, the expert blogger cited has to be a previously published reliable source author on the topic in question. Other editors may disagree with your use of such a source. Be prepared to explain how the specific blogger qualifies as an expert. Assume good faith of everyone who objects, and negotiate toward consensus. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes/BLP unsourced

I've been doing pending changes review, and one of the most frequent things I see is small additions to BLPs that seem like good faith edits, aren't anything that seems at all contentious, but aren't sourced, in articles that are protected because of persistent vandalism (rather than being protected specifically to prevent the addition of unsourced material.) For instance, the insertion of a reasonable-sounding birthdate into an infobox, 'dancer' into a list that already includes 'choreographer', but no citation. I'm trying to clarify for myself what I should be doing. If the reason for the protection =isn't= specifically the prevention of the addition of unsourced material, and the edit seems to be good-faith, should I go ahead and accept and maybe stick a citation needed tag in? (This is assuming I don't have the time to do the research, or as often happens, haven't much interest in tracking down a reliable birthdate source that says, in addition to being a choreographer she's also a dancer, for a celebrity.)

Thanks for any advice! valereee (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Valereee: A full date of birth should never be added without a reliable source, per WP:DOB. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Joseph2302 Yeah, I know...I guess I'm confused because part of the instructions for pending changes seem to be that if the change is one that most editors wouldn't bother to -remove- if they came across it in general browsing, default setting is let it through. And I kind of figured most editors would probably drop a citation needed tag on these small more-or-less innocuous items. Or at least that's what I would probably do. But I do know BLPs are a different animal, which is why I was kind of wondering whether I was doing reviews right. So then the addition to the general instructions should probably be that in the case of BLPs on a page protected for any reason, =nothing= goes through without a source? valereee (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Valereee great question to ask at the Teahouse. I ran into the exact same problem while patrolling page edits with the STIki interface with schools! It was making me crazy that anyone and everyone would add a name claiming to be a notable alumni. I finally contacted the Wikiproject Schools about these unsourced addition of names to school articles and they told me to revert the addition of any names that were not the headmaster/superintendent/principal. I created a friendly, good-faith template that explains the reversions that I do to these articles that I send off to the person who added the name. Anyway, it made my editing reviews easier because half the time or more I think the kids are just adding the names of their buddies and friends to the article. It's nice to be able to remove them as unsourced, non-notable persons.
  Bfpage |leave a message  22:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
So, Bfpage, even if the headmaster's name wasn't sourced, it was okay to accept?

valereee (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the WikiProject School editors the answer is 'yes'.
  Bfpage |leave a message  01:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Valereee I for one routinely remove any full date of birth on a BLP article unless it is not only sourced, but sorced to soemthing indicating tht the subject is OK with it being out there, or else surced to soemthign that indicates tha tthe date is widely known already, published in multple national publications, say. See WP:DOB. For articles about no longer living people, I would not remove a DOB. and might not even bother with a {{fact}} tag. DES (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
DESiegel Clearly birthdate was a really bad example.  :) valereee (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

So the question remains -- is ANYTHING unsourced, in a pending changes review in a BLP, okay? Or is this a toggle-switch situation -- nothing that isn't sourced should be accepted? valereee (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, not everyone would agree, But I would say it's a judgement call. I haven't done too much with pending changes (I was opposed to implmenting it, and i would favor removing it). But in reviewing regular changes, or while generally editing and article, here ar some inclinatiosn of mine. BLPs should be stricter about referncing than any other kind of article. Any negative content, any controversial content, and any direct quotes must have an inline citation. Anything that smells of POPV-pushing, or unsourced and unattributed opnion/evaluation is a problem. But routine statements need not all be sourced. For example in an articel about a famous chemist, a statment that he graduated from XYZ U in <year> with a PhD I would probably let stand. At most I would put a {{fact}} tag on it. A list of publications that gives bibliographic details is its own source, you don't need a citation to an RS to show that the subject wrote his published works. Simialrly, the early, comparitivly minor posts/jobs that a person held before becomming notable need not have cites to the bare fact that the subject held PostX from Year1 to Year2. Other routine non-controversial facts I would also say don't need cites. And of course, don't forget You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Statements that should have a cite -- awards, say -- I woud tag but not remove without warning. DES (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
DESiegel, thanks -- LOL, so I think this means 'get more familiar with things like WP:DOB and other things that might -seem- innocuous but really aren't, and then use judgment.  :) Okay, that's good advice. I'll go reread the BLP stuff, maybe I need to brush up. Thanks, all, I appreciate all the help! valereee (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

autobio editing

I have completed writing an autobiography of an Japanese actress I support. But the page keeps saying there is a problem. "Notification: proposed deletion of".小川 夏果 (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi 小川夏果. Welcome to the Teahouse. There are two problems with your article. The first one is that 小川夏果 is written in Japanese. It's OK to cite sources that are in Japanese, but the article itself needs to be in English because this is the English version of Wikipedia. This is why your article was added to to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English (see here). This means that the article will be deleted in two weeks unless you or some other editor is able to rewrite it in English. There is a Japanese Wikipedia article for this actress and it looks like you just tried to copy and paste that page onto English Wikipedia. That's not really how it's done, so I think it might be a good idea for you to read WP:TRANSLATE.
The other problem has to do with your user name. Your user name and the name of the actress you support are exactly the same. This means that you may have what is called a conflict of interest. If you are really the actress, then you really should not be trying to write an article about yourself per WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. You should also take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide to find out what kinds of things editors who have a conflict of interest may and may not do. If, however, you are just a fan of the actress and just decided to use her name as your username, then you can write the article, but you probably should consider changing your username so that other editors don't mistakenly assume you have a conflict of interest and because Wikipedia's user name policy does not editors to use names that indicate they are a specific, identifiable person (e.g, the name of a famous movie star, musician or athlete) per WP:IMPERSONATE. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I see you have tried to fix the first problem. Please be aware though that simply translating the Japanese Wikipedia article into English may be considered a copyright violation. I suggest you take a look at WP:CWW#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects and WP:TRANSLATION#How to translate for more information. The problem with your username, however, still exists so you might want to consider changing it if intend to continue editing the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I also moved the page to their English name, but I question the notability, as well as the issues above. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
NB, the article has been speedily deleted.--ukexpat (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

How do I improve my article?

It says that the article Mariel Pamintuan has many issues. I wanna solve those issues. How do I do it? I've done everything that is said to be done to resolve the issues. Can you help me improve it? Here's what's written in the issues bar..

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject. (June 2015) This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. (June 2015) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (June 2015)

Can you please check the article Mariel Pamintuan and help me improve it? Please and thank you! :)

MarielLovies (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The article in question is Mariel Pamintuan. Its principal editors have been User:Mariel Pamintuan and you, User:MarielLovies. Are you, User:MarielLovies, also Mariel Pamintuan? If not, why do you say that you have done everything that you can to resolve the issues? If you are Mariel Pamintuan, then there are two very big problems. First, the article is an autobiography, which is one of the more serious forms of conflict of interest. Second, if you are Mariel Pamintuam, then you are using two accounts, which violates the policy on multiple accounts. If you are not Mariel Pamintuan, then you can improve the article by addressing the identified issues, by providing more citations, including information as to why she is notable in the peculiar Wikipedia sense, and by providing third-party input to an article that was originally an autobiography. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, MarielLovies. The first four sentences of the "Career" section of Mariel Pamintuan are unreferenced. This is not acceptable, particularly in a BLP article, and they should be removed unless reliable published sources are cited. The first sentence is imprecise: what is "a very young age"? The fourth sentence contains the phrase "was known for" - this phrase should never appear in a Wikipedia article unless it cites a reliable independent source which says that the subject was known for whatever it is.
These are just a couple of major points I have noticed: they are not exhaustive. --ColinFine (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, it's not your article, it's an article that you created, per WP:OWN. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
How do I prevent the article from deletion. Please help me!!!

MarielLovies (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not Mariel Pamintuan. I am her supporter. It's just that it's my first time to create a Wikipedia article. I thought that the username you'll use is the name of the article you'll create. Please help me fix it. Thank you :)

MarielLovies (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You say that you are not Mariel Pamintuan, but her supporter. How are you supporting Ms. Pamintuan? Are you working for her, as a publicist, manager, or agent? If so, you also have a conflict of interest, and would do better to request edits to the article than to edit the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
You say that you thought your username is the name of the article you will create. That seems to imply that you expect that each editor in Wikipedia maintains one article. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Some editors have created hundreds of articles. Some editors do not create articles, but improve them. Your user name is simply the user name by which you are known. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Provide more citations, in particular for the first four sentences of "Career". Some of them should indicate why is considered notable. Address the other points made in the article and by ColinFine. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
You say that this is your first time to create a Wikipedia article. What article are you creating? Ms. Pamintuan already created the article. Do you really mean that you are trying to improve the article? If so, that is what you are trying to do.

Carrie morgridge page

I have recently publish the page in the summary and I am not sure why it is not worthy of Wiki. Can someone out there help me out on the subject? EveryGiftMatters (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The page in question is Carrie Morgridge (at least, it is now that I have corrected the capitalization). As the proposed deletion tag indicates, it doesn't contain any references to secondary sources. The only references are provided by the Morgridge family themselves. Have any articles been published independently in reliable sources such as newspapers or magazines? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Every Gift Matters is the title of a book published by Morgridge. Your user ID is also a form of that title. Are you associated with Carrie Morgridge or the Morgridge family? If so, you have a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The article has grammatical errors. I have tagged it for copy-editing in case it survives the proposed deletion. (I am not copy-editing the article because there is not much point to copy-editing an article that is likely to be deleted for notability reasons.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Normal WP practise regarding quotations

I am having trouble with an editor who (among other things) is altering the wording of several quotes in an article.
Unless I am mistaken we need to use the 'exact' wording in the source,[4] including mistakes, and using [sic] where appropriate.
Are we even supposed to link terms within quotes?
Examples:

The change of "uranium 235" to "U235" I'm not sure about, though this is more a history page than a physics course so the 'scientific' way of saying U235 seems unecessary. Also changing "using" to "uses" and there's a hyphen added there too.
  • Source "These boosted devices are like a half way stage towards a thermonuclear bomb. ..."
  • Edit "These boosted-fission devices are like a half way stage towards a thermonuclear bomb. ..."
They are re-adding "-fission", which is not in the source.

To top it off

  • "Pakistan has had a nuclear capability since 1984 ...." becomes,
  • "Pakistan has had a nuclear capability since 1983"
They are actually changing the date without explanation! (And I have asked!)

My main query is, whether my idea of quote usage is correct? I know this isn't the place to 'whinge' about other editors, but any assistance and suggestions are welcome. 220 of Borg 10:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

exclamation mark  I have advised PeerBaba (talk · contribs) of the discussion here and invited them to participate. [5] 220 of Borg 13:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

220 of Borg, WP:MOSQUOTE says (in the Original wording subsection): "Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. This is referred to as the principle of minimal change. Where there is good reason to change the wording, enclose changes within square brackets ... If there is a significant error in the original statement, use [sic] or the template {{sic}} to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia" and, later in the Linking subsection "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader". See also WP:WHYCITE and the essay WP:QUOTE which says (in the Formatting subsection):

"If not used verbatim, any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [square brackets] for added or replacement text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text (see WP:ELLIPSIS for details), and emphasis noted after the quotation as "[emphasis added]" or "[emphasis in the original]". Exceptions are trivial spelling or typographical errors that obviously do not affect the intended meaning; these may be silently corrected or may be retained and marked with " [sic]"—using the template {{sic}}—to indicate that the error is in the original source"

So, from your description, without having reviewed the edits directly, it seems to me as if there may be a problem here. DES (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
DESiegel I think we do. (Have a problem that is.) They have used one summary recently, which was a bit hard to follow, [6] From my poking about, it seems they have only ever posted on one editor's talk page, 4 times, and most recently 21 months ago [7]. They have not replied directly to me at all, on their talk page, or mine. 220 of Borg 12:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi 220, this is just my opinion but: if the original quote was from a written source then it should be quoted exactly as per the original. However, if the original quote was spoken then spelling and formatting have just been assumed by others and thus I guess ok to be changed within reason if it still accurately represents what was said. So for your "uranium 235" to "U235" quote: if written it should as originally written, and if spoken then did they say uranium or U? Adding a hyphen to boosted fission is not a big deal, but adding "-fission" when it was not in the original not ok. A quote is a quote, if they want to re-interpret/clarify the meaning it should be either done outside the quote, or instead of the quote. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Some typographic changes to direct quotations are permissible; see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations. However, alterations that change the meaning of quotations should be avoided. That said, direct quotations for factual content such as that which you present above are not really appropriate anyway (see WP:QUOTE). In such instances, it would be far better to report the information and then cite the source, rather than trying to quote directly from it. Yunshui 雲水 11:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Yunshui I'm not sure that the source 'nuclearweaponarchive.org' is that great, but it's what was already used on the page. As far as I am concerned, they are changing the meaning, not correcting typos or anything like that. I just see unexplained changes so that the 'quotes' are no longer supported 100% by the source. I find their grammar is suspect too anyway, see [8] which undoes part of an edit I did here.
"The program accelerated when India eventually surprising the world with its first nuclear test". 220 of Borg 13:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@KylieTastic: Opinion, are we allowed to have opinions here? I want some rules! The source, here (which is also linked to in my post above) is written. The editor has changed it twice, and an IP has also altered it once. I have specified the problem in my edit summaries like here and here. I have also posted a long detailed rant message on their talk page, here, mostly about this specific issue along with all the other template messages and warning/s they seem to have ignored.
They also have a penchant for linking everything, I mean everything, in sight, sometimes twice in the same paragraph, creating a wp:SEAOFBLUE. See here where among lots of other edits, I removed one link (PAEC) that was repeated 11 times. 220 of Borg 12:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi Borg. Quotes must be reproduced with fidelity. Any change (other than fixing ministerial matters such as spelling, which would not include a change like "uranium 235" to "U235") must be clearly marked or we are falsely attributing the source. For details, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations known by the shortcut MOS:QUOTE. Any falsely attributed quotes in Chagai-I should be reverted. Your edit summaries there say what you're doing, but don't explain much about why. It might help to explain the issue in more detail in them and link that manual of style section, such as "you cannot rewrite quotations in this way; they must be accurately reproduced. See [[MOS:QUOTE]]". Links in quotations are less of an issue. The advice usually given is that they should be avoided, as noted in the same section of the MoS (see also WP:LINKSTYLE), but it's a far more minor issue than false attribution. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit, you may call me '220' (we're all friends here) It's what I was usually called in my IP editing days (Sigh!)
Anyway, the links you (and DES/DESiegel) supplied seem to be what I was looking for, but couldn't find! I have put a big message on the editor's talk-page here pointing out the issues in detail. I have linked them to WP:OVERLINK, WP:Linking, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and wp:reliable sources at least. This seems like a massive case of WP:IDHT. I'm wary of 3RR, as AFAIK I've never hit it, though I should be safe as, as far as I am concerned, when they alter the quotes they are breaching WP:Verifiability, and/or deliberately adding errors.
(I have far more important thing to do than chase this editor, sigh! :-/ ) - 220 of Borg 13:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@220 I have often wished the exemptions to 3RR explicitly included certain very specific types of objective disruptive editing that are sparkingly clear in policy and guideline and that generally do not fall into gray areas in recognition (most importantly, adding back material without any source cited through an inline citation, where the material was challenged and removed per WP:BURDEN, and after the user had been clearly apprised of the standard and warned not to repeat the action without compliance). There are certain types of edits that to my mind become vandalism if repeated, after warnings. But I have seen editors draw an inflexible distinction between "disruptive editing" and "vandalism". That is to say, I would not consider this a 3RR issue if the user has been clearly advised and continued, and I think many other admins would feel likewise – but don't count on it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: Well at least some people with 'Authoritae' (Cartman?) are paying attention. I just wish PeerBaba would! I see a lot of the same POV and massively over-linked text coming up on multiple page that I have edited recently, and I think I know where it's coming from. Science and technology in Pakistan for example seems to be a great big repetitive "Gee aren't we smart" page. Pakistan and Indian pages often seem to be devoid of NPOV. Eg:
"This period is often regarded as the Golden age of Physics in Pakistan, where physicists, particularly from Pakistan, had shared and applied an effort to the advancement of physics and mathematics."
Really! (And poor grammar too!) I keep thinking I'll stay away from them, but they keep rolling up on the New page patrol, so I get dragged back in. (sigh) Way overdue for 'dinner' too its after midnight here - 220 of Borg 15:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Another revert

Fuhghettaboutit DESiegel Yunshui I have reverted the 'not per source' quote changes etc. to Chagai-I again, here, and warned the editor for 'introducing factual errors' here. Still overdue for 'dinner' too! - 220 of Borg 17:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I am becoming more and more certain that someone is editing Chagai-I logged out. 31.216.14.4 (talk · contribs) has part reverted back to the version PereBaba wants. Interestingly, all the IPs doing these types of edit seem to geolocate to the same area. The edit summary here "conjugating two sentences into one sentence to avoid too much wordiness in the article." is plain false. they altered words, but didn't join two sentence. It was also done only 4 minutes after I reverted PeerBaba's last edit changing the quotes!
Source says
"... all the Pakistani devices were made with enriched uranium" edited to say
"... all the boosted-fission devices were made with HEU [Highly-Enriched Uranium] "
220 of Borg 19:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the IP's edit to the wrong quotes and have requested temporary full page protection here Time for bed at 6 am!! 220 of Borg 19:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

How do I format an external link?

I am trying to format an external link and am experiencing difficulty. Help?Ftomberlin (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ftomberlin. Linking to existing Wikipedia pages is done by placing doubled square brackets around the name of the page. Thus, [[Wikipedia]] produces Wikipedia. A useful expansion of this is done by separating what you want linked, from what you want displayed, with a pipe character ("|"), to create a "piped link". Thus: [[Wikipedia|encyclopedia]] produces encyclopedia, with the displayed text linking to the article, Wikipedia. You can link to internal sections of pages in this way: Wikipedia#name of internal section of that article. By contrast, for external links: http://www.example.org produces http://www.example.org; [http://www.example.org] produces [9]; and [http://www.example.org example] produces example. For more information, please see Help:Link. You might find a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial helpful. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Images for articles under review

I have submitted an article that is still pending review and is not yet live on wikipedia. I would like to add an image to the article but am wondering if I should wait until it is approved. TKTSF (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@TKTSF: Assuming it's a free to use image, then yes you can add it. If it's a non-free image (for example a company logo), then you need to wait until it's in article space, because otherwise using it in draft space is not acceptable under "fair use". Joseph2302 (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Adminship

Would 1 year of service be sufficient to apply for adminship? Thank You TeaLover1996 Talk to me ☏ 21:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It would very much depend on what was accomplished (and avoided;-) during that year. If you want the short answer without knowing any specific, "probably not". Asking this in the hypothetical doesn't give us much to work with though. At the least, people would be looking for enough substantive edits so that a survey of them would show temperament and experience. A solid record showing understanding and application of policy and guideline is looked for – especially in areas where administrative tools if gained might be used, such as edits to WP:AIV, AfDs, new pages patrol with accurate speedy tagging, and placement of prods and deletion discussion nominations where appropriate, etc.; a clean block log, some tact but also some backbone, maybe some toe dipping into dispute resolution; some people require among their personal RfA standards serious, substantive article work or even at least one FA. I am not saying you need all of this but a fairly diverse cross-section of edits is looked for. The point is, it's difficult to really have enough experience after only one year. Anyway, see Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, the Miniguide, Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates and Wikipedia:Not now. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks! Appreciated TeaLover1996 ☏ 22:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Word File for Pre-Review?

Hi! I'm a new contributer (or hope to be). My first attempt found a speedy deletion. The draft article has since been reinstated for rewrite. I should add for transparency that I have a technical COI (am an employee of the proposed company article) although I do not believe that notability will be a concern once properly referenced. Is it feasible to submit a Word form of a rewrite draft for preliminary review?Lcc46 (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There really isn't anywhere to submit a Word file for review. Please use the articles for creation process to create a draft "on wiki" that can be reviewed.--ukexpat (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
An added tip, Lcc46. Editing on your computer with a word processing program such as Word or WordPerfect and then copying the results over into the Wikimedia software online is really a bad idea. Word processing software such as, but not limited to, the ones I mentioned create invisible artifacts for formatting when you type into them, and when you copy them, the Wikimedia software picks them up. If you feel you must work on your computer rather than online, use an unformatted note program such as Microsoft Notepad or its Apple equivalent. That way you do not have to go through and remove all those pesky little artifacts. John from Idegon (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this canvassing?

Two editors post thanks on a third editor’s talk page, and ask him to help improve an article. The third editor agrees, and suggests that the first two editors can “return the favor” (his words) by commenting on an ongoing RfC debate. (Here are the details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DrFleischman#Thomas_More_Law_Center). Is the third editor canvassing? Thanks! James James Cage (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, James Cage. Here is the summary description at WP:Canvassing:
"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate."
Among the acceptable reasons for notifying other editors is if they edit in closely related areas. In this specific case, two editors approached a third. It is clear that those two editors are involved with a similar article, and that the third editor asked them to consider participating in a discussion, but did not try to influence what they would say. Accordingly, I do not see this as canvassing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. James Cage (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Issue linking to additional page

I am having an issue linking to another wikipedia article. The link says the page doesn't exist when it does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Air_Ambulance_Service is the page and the link is in the top section and should point to is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Air_Ambulance.

It's probably something easy but I'm trying to help add some more details to a charity page.


Robins R. Robins r (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Robins r: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you take a very close look, you'll notice that Children’s Air Ambulance has a curly apostrophe in "Children's", versus Children's Air Ambulance that has a neutral apostrophe. These are technically different titles, which is why the article doesn't appear to exist. We typically use neutral apostrophes on Wikipedia, if not always. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @SuperHamster. I've made that change and it's fixed. Thanks also for the links. I'll take a look at those.

Robins R.

Robins r (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Page about a living person

can someone help me get a page published? It's about a living person. I'm having trouble with verified sources. The issue is that my client has a lot of it, but mostly in print versions from 20+ years ago so they aren't digital https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mjfdigital&action=edit&section=1

Thank you! Mjfdigital (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mjfdigital: By the sounds of it, you're being paid by a client, so the first thing you must do is declare this, in accordance with Wikimedia Terms of Use, [10], which say "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation."- it's best to do this on your userpage and the draft talkpage. Then read, WP:COI, because you have a clear conflict of interest. Also, to get an article accepted, it needs to show significant, independent coverage from reliable sources about them, per WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Quite true. However, there is no requirement that sources be online. Printed sources that have been published and could, for example, be found in a library, are perfecly acceptable. DES (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

numbers at end of page?

I have been making changes to the page about Shirrel Rhoades and it is going OK except now I see numbers at the bottom of the page. They are the same as the reference numbers so I must have not put in the references correctly. Can you help me? Keywestbookworm (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The reference formatting needs to be fixed. I'll work on it a little.--ukexpat (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 Fixed--ukexpat (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_352&oldid=1138689365"