Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 443

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 440Archive 441Archive 442Archive 443Archive 444Archive 445→Archive 450

wikipedia article deletion - please help!

Hi Wikipedia experts My article Ahmed Saad Al-Azhari has been deleted. I think the community have seen it as promotional. Please can you advise? I want to edit the source so to remove any promotional language. Or would I need to create the article again? The reason why I want to do this is because I stupidly created a username that makes it appear the subject of the article is the creator of the article, where I am not Ahmed Saad. Please advise as what to do? Ahmedsaad.ihsan (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(e.c.)This was deleted per AFD discussion. It was deleted primarily because there was not enough evidence of the subject's notability. See WP:Notability. We need to see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Meters (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
thank you for both of your comments. How can I attempt to rewrite the article? Or do I have to create a new entry again? Ahmedsaad.ihsan (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
But, given what Meters has said about notability, Ahmedsaad.ihsan, your time would best be spent first of all finding reliable independent sources which discuss the Al-Azhari at length. If you cannot find much published material written about him by people who have no connection with him, then it will not be possible (for anybody) to write an acceptable article about him at present, and I advise you not to try. --ColinFine (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Dear ColinFine, thank you for your comments and advice. I will try and find more independent sources for sure. However I would like to mention my article did contain independent sources e.g. from newspapers etc. Ahmedsaad.ihsan (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
also, I don't understand - I have seen articles which have references that are linked to the subject. Why are these articles not deleted? Ahmedsaad.ihsan (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Probably because we haven't got round to them yet. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands of articles that should be deleted. Also please take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF.--ukexpat (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
And also because non-independent sources are permitted, Ahmesaad.ihsan, for certain kinds of information (uncontroversial factual data such as dates and places); but most of the sources for an article should be independent. --ColinFine (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Help with reference

I would be grateful if I could have help with a reference.

I have been trying to format ref 38 but fail each time. Instead I get ref 39 (which I don't require). What am I doing wrong? Could you format ref 38 for me please.

Your help would be much appreciated.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This is presumably about Draft:Feargus Hetherington. Rojomoke (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Cured with this edit. You had two problems. The first was that you had two | url = parameters in ref 39, so it ignored the first (correct) one and gave you the second (incorrect) one. The second problem was merely that ref 38 was an unformatted duplicate of 39, so I've deleted it. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Paul Glaister

I reviewed Draft:Paul Glaister and declined it twice as not meeting notability guideline, and discouraged the submission of autobiographies. User:Paul Glaister has now inserted the following diff into the bottom of the article (rather than as an AFC comment): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3APaul_Glaister&type=revision&diff=700506601&oldid=699045995 He then removed it when I cautioned about inserting first-person language into the article itself. I agree that he does meet academic notability guidelines, but the draft needs work. Can other experienced editors please either review the article or caution Dr. Glaister about autobiographies? I see that the draft refers to his education only in the bottom of the article and not in the body of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts, Robert McClenon and Paul Glaister. Writing autobiographies is a form of conflict of interest editing, which is discouraged but not forbidden. The Articles for Creation process was established, at least in part, to allow editors with a declared COI to create a draft for review by more experienced, generalist editors. Accordingly, an AfC draft should not be greeted with the hostility that is commonly given to a COI article plunked directly into the encyclopedia without in-depth review. Commend COI editors who use AfC rather than vilifying them. AfC should not insist on perfection, but should move articles to the encyclopedia main space when they have at least a 50-50 chance of surviving a deletion debate. Articles can and often will be improved later.
In this case, I see little doubt that Paul Glaister meets our notability guideline for academics. Yes, the draft is imperfect, but I believe that the encyclopedia is better off with the article than without it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Cullen328 - I agree that it is better to submit conflict of interest drafts to AFC than to dump them directly into mainspace. I agree that I have negative feelings toward autobiographies in general because most of the ones that I encounter in AFC are bad, not notable and containing peacock language. My own thought about this one, and this is only my opinion, is that the author should be asked to expand it somewhat, to give a synopsis of his education and career. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
For one thing, Glaister shouldn't be described as "prolific", in Wikipedia's voice, without good sources that clearly describe him as such. Even if such sources are found, I think it best that such an opinion is attributed to its author rather than being in Wikipedia's voice. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Dear All

I have read the notes on my User: Paul Glaister page. Many of these are actually supportive. I hope you can still access the last version of the page even though I cannot as it has been deleted by an editor. There were suggestions on this thread that it might be appropriate for my page to be published, and I would welcome any advice as to how to make it more suitable and acceptable. I removed the phrase 'prolific' - I put it there on the basis that I had over 400 publications, and in that sense 'prolific', not least because that does represent something of an achievement. But I have removed the phrase now anyway. Anything I can add to the main body of the current version (if it still exists) that you can suggest would be very welcome. As one of my roles as Chair of JMC is relevant to hundreds of thousands of mathematicians and mathematics educators in the UK across universities, schools and colleges, it would seem appropriate that I appear somewhere and a link from the Joint Mathematical Council page to a page featuring me would seem appropriate. Paul Glaister (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Paul, please don't give up. It's almost certainly not over, if you can stay with it and let the Wikipedia policies and processes do their thing. Your deleted page can be retrieved by an administrator, and emailed to you under the WP:REFUND process. If it is any consolation, User:Jimbo Wales famously has had problems with updating Jimmy Wales, due to some of the very same policies that you are running into. Also, once upon a time, Wikipedia policy declared that the iPhone did not have notability, and deleted it. --Murph9000 (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Paul Glaister, the version of the article at Draft:Paul Glaister still exists and can be worked on. It was only the version that you had saved to your user page that was deleted, as that isn't the place for draft articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Murph9000 and Cordless Larry - very much appreciated. I guess I await further instruction/advice from editors as to what to do next! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Glaister (talk • contribs) 11:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Linking to Hate Sites

What is the relevant policy about linking to hate sites? Is it simply WP:RS and WP:FRINGE, or is there a more directly relevant policy regarding links to racist or neo-fascist content? (Please ping me when replying, or reply on my talk page -- thanks!) MarkBernstein (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there may be a bit of a grey area on it. If the site adds no value as a source (due to failing one of the usual criteria for sources), there's normally no reason to include it. Otherwise, WP:ELNO applies, and WP:LINKLOVE may also be relevant. However, these are all guidelines, and not policies. It looks to me like the only policy prohibited links are copyvio and stuff blocked for technical reasons, per WP:ELNEVER. My personal view, is that if a generally objectionable site is needed to neutrally document something, then linking to it may be a necessary evil, but that such things should be generally minimised when it is reasonable to do so. --Murph9000 (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@MarkBernstein: so you know you have an answer. Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Liz, although I did send Mark an official teahouse talkback. :) --Murph9000 (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Off-topic: Dear Liz. The Teahouse gives Teahouse hosts a nifty link that shows up next to a poster's signature and it looks like this: [TB]. When we click on that link it automatically sets a Teahouse Talkback announcement on the Talk page of the user like this: User talk:MarkBernstein#Teahouse talkback: you.27ve got messages. It is a Teahouse Host User Script that has to be installed manually to activate the feature. The only challenge is to remember to copy the thread heading name to clipboard so it can be pasted in to the [TB] process so the user can easily get back to the question from a link in the Talkback message on their User page. Casing and exact wording is important for the link to work; that's why copy/paste is the safest way to insert the topic name in to the [TB] chain. The Teashouse Talkback message can also be set manually via a template, but that is more tedious. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm familiar with Talkback messages and I post one on user talk pages when I answer a question. I didn't answer Mark's question though and was just responding to his request to Please ping me when replying, or reply on my talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Liz. Gotcha. I just considered a Talkback message to be in lieu of a complete reply. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
On topic: Greetings, and welcome again to the Teahouse MarkBernstein. I would say it would usually fall under TMEL (too many external links). Also, hate sites would fall under personal sites or Blog sites typically. Here is the nutshell on external links:
Note: WP:External links is a guideline, not a policy. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, MarkBernstein. True "hate sites" cannot be considered reliable sources, and therefore should not be cited as references except in extremely limited ways. Exceptions would be for uncontroversial facts like the name of the proprietor or the city where it is headquartered. But some hate sites are themselves notable and deserving of an encyclopedia article. This is in no way an endorsement. We have articles, for example, about Hitler's book Mein Kampf and the Nazi hate newspaper Der Stürmer, and each article has external links to disturbing content. If a modern operating hate website is notable, then we should both include frank assessments of what reliable sources say about the site, and also include a link to that site in our article about it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I am mildly curious as to why MarkBernstein, a longstanding and experienced editor, has asked this question here on a page for new users, rather than at the Help Desk. Maproom (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
sorry to cause inconvenience. I was pretty sure you'd have this at the tip of your fingers, and tea has a nicely dramatic sound. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

referencs dont show subjects notibility

Hi,

I am a beginner to Wikipedia, and working on my page in the draftspace. It has been declined as the references don't show the subjects notability.

I have read the guidelines but still confused as to were I am going wrong. Please can you clarify if this refers to all the references listed and exactly were I am still making the error.

Any help and advice would be greatly appreciated Melissatanya (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Convenience link:- Draft:Exact Abacus - Arjayay (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Melissatanya. The draft currently contains only two references (which is barely enough for notability in any case); but though they appear to be reliable sources, the MEN article is obviously written from a press release and is therefore not independent of the company. I can't see more than the first few lines of the Business News article, so I can't be sure, but it looks to me as if that is probably from a press release as well: I may be wrong, in which case that is a useful reference, but you need at least one more.
I see that the draft has been nominated for a speedy delete by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, as unambiguous advertising, but I have removed that nomination because I don't agree. The company may turn out not to be notable, but if it is notable, I don't think the current content is unreasonable (though it will need to be added to from the sources). --ColinFine (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I notice there's quite a few Exact Abacus references in Google News, and some in Google books which might be worth considering?Alfshire 15:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the feedback and advice. I am going to make the suggested changes and hopefully show more notability with the sources.

Your help has been much appriciated and i'm sure I'll get my had around this wikipedia in no time.

Thanks Melissatanya (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Who is watching?

Hello, Teahousers. This is probably a dumb question ... they're my speciality ... but is there any way to find out who is watching an article? This is really just for curiosity, prompted because I was wondering whether anybody watches my User Talk page. I tried "what links here" but that does not have anything. Gronk Oz (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz - You can't tell who, and you can only tell how many, if there are more than 30 - in your case there are "Fewer than 30 watchers" as shown here - Click "Page information" in the LH column - which tells me that 1,010 editors have this Teahouse page on their watchlist. - Arjayay (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Great - thanks for that, Arjayay. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

unsourced comment

In Nihal (name), someone slipped in the following about two weeks ago: "For this reason, people with the mentioned name happen to be unique, successful individuals." I removed that sentence for obvious reasons. At the same time, they also added: "The name also means tall and slim." There is nothing wrong with this, but I don't know if it is true. There is no source, but there are no sources for what was there prior. Given the nature of this article (really a short paragraph), should it have normal references? MB (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, MB, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would say that Wikipedia:Verifiability applies to all content on Wikipedia, and therefore if a source can't be found, the material should be removed. It looks like it already has been in this case. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, MB. This is a problem I quite often have: somebody adds some unsourced material to an already poorly sourced article: what do I do? Often what I do is to remove the addition (with a suitable edit summary), and separately add a {{refimprove}} tag to the top of the article. Much better would be to take the time to research the article and look for references (including for the new information), adding those where I can find them, and removing information which I cannot verify; but that can be a lot of work. I do it sometimes, but not often. Sometimes it is apparent that the subject is not notable; again there are choices: to nominate if for deletion, or just to tag it with {{notability}}. --ColinFine (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@MB, Cordless Larry, and ColinFine: I've been thinking about this issue a little, and realised that I have to voice strong objection to one word used above, "should". WP:UNSOURCED states that it "may be removed", which is quite different from "should be removed". Wikipedia would suffer tremendous damage if "should" was widely and indiscriminately applied. Each and every case needs to be carefully considered individually, and only the troublesome statements should be removed. Leaving the less troublesome (or more reasonable, just uncited) statements in place, but adding an inline {{citation needed}} tag to the specific statement is a far more reasonable and productive thing to do, as well as being entirely consistent with the WP:UNSOURCED policy. The consideration should be per statement, not per article, so an article with 10 unsourced statements might have 1 removed and 9 tagged for citation needed. Indiscriminate removal might even cause people look at it as vandalism. I'm not suggesting that the specific thing which opened this discussion should be restored, only that "should" is the wrong approach (and is not consistent with the official policy). --Murph9000 (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Point taken, Murph9000, but note that WP:UNSOURCED also states that material challenged or likely to be challenged should be sourced. The statement that Nihal "also means tall and slim" sounds rather suspicious to me (perhaps someone called Nihal added it), so I would challenge it and require a source. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The statement concerned was added as part of this one edit, so there is no reason to believe that the second part of the edit was any more truthful than the obviously fictitious first part. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry and David Biddulph: Yeah, I agree, when viewed in context, removal does seem quite appropriate for this specific case. I think a good way of describing it might be that you should ideally have a better reason than purely being unsourced, and the context of that edit is a significant factor which tips the balance towards removal. --Murph9000 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Dealing With Socks

Per Dealing with sock puppets, you should "not ever call someone a sock puppet on an article or user talk page or in any edit summary", but I've seen experienced editors accuse fellow editors of being socks, and revert on said basis. There seems to be a contradiction with regards to Wikipedia convention and what policies say, or am I wrong? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You need to bear in mind that WP:Dealing with sock puppets is an essay, and not a policy or guideline. The policy is at WP:Sock puppetry. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Another essay which is often used in sockpuppetry situations is WP:DUCK. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi DevilWearsBrioni. This seems couched at providing rules of thumb to avoid drama and actions that might backfire on you if not done circumspectly, rather than to set a rule in stone. Anyway, no such concrete behavioral prescription can envision every circumstance where the advice might fail. And even if the advice is wise, and most of the instances you've seen would have been better rethought, this is an essay, not a policy or a guideline, with one user's take. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The OP's question might perhaps be read in the context of the discussion at User talk:Dr.K./Archive 17#Panagiotis Kone. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. And yes, David Biddulph, that's the discussion. One a related note, how does one deal with sock edits? In my experience, it seems a bit arbitrary. Certain parts have been reverted, while other edits remained. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@David Biddulph and Fuhghettaboutit: Thank you David and Fuhghettaboutit for your very well-made points. Now I think we can put this matter to rest. Best regards. Dr. K. 17:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

ECPMF article proposal

Dears, I'm thinking about creating a Wikipedia article concerning the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF). Before drafting the page, though, I would like to have your opinion on whether the subject already meets the notability criteria. Thank you, --Davide Denti (OBC) (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. To avoid wasting editors' time by answering questions which have already been answered elsewhere, we normally prefer that questions not be asked in multiple places. As you've asked it at the help desk we'll let people answer it there. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks @David Biddulph:, and sorry for that!--Davide Denti (OBC) (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is Andrei Tome being deleted?

I'm not sure whom is which and what is what, but which is the which to what is more notable that what?

I am being fed up to get this notice in front of a page which I want to create and is marked to be deleted.

This in fact shows that every wikipedia page should be deleted. No one is greater than Andrei Toma, so that page should remain there as long as wikipedia exists

Othewise makes no sense to have this wikipedia business in our online comunity which bans people from expressing themselves. 17:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)17:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)17:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)17:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icdsarch (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not indented to be a place for people to express themselves. It is an encyclopaedia. No general-purpose encyclopaedia in history has previously had an article on Andrei Toma, if Wikipedia is to be the first a good case needs to be made.
Wikipedia uses a concept called "notability" to decide which concepts/people etc. have articles and which do not. If you believe you can prove that Andrei Toma meets the notability criteria for people, please edit that article to prove this. --LukeSurl t c 17:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Read the boomerang essay. You are calling attention to your own disruptive editing in removing of speedy deletion templates. There is a procedure to contest speedy deletion, but it isn't by removing the templates. You are subject to being blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
And, as warned on your talk page, your Username contravenes our Username policy, as according to this website ICDS ARCH LTD, is Andrei Toma's company. Furthermore, you also have a conflict of interest in writing, or editing, the article at all. - Arjayay (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Stevie Aiello

User:StevieWorldwide asked me at my talk page about declines of Draft: Stevie Aiello: “Hi, sorry if I ask you but the article is constantly declined. I spent a lot of time on it and I don't want my work to be wasted. Could you help me understand what's wrong so that I can make it right? Thank you so much in advance”. Can other experienced editors please comment? Also, are you, User:StevieWorldwide the living person who is Stevei Aiello? If so, your draft is an autobiography, and common advice about autobiographies is not to try to submit them. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply! No we are not Stevie Aiello. We are two people who have a fanpage on social media and are trying to write informations on wikipedia about him — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevieWorldwide (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

See the username policy. User accounts should not be shared. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

We wrote that in two but i'm the only one running this account, I don't see the problem. However I asked about the article, there are other editors who helping me. I'mgoing to edit it in a few minutes. Thanks for your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevieWorldwide (talk • contribs) 20:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

First, you said that you are two people. Then you say that you are one person running the account, but that other editors are helping you. If they are helping you by using the account to edit the article, that is non-permitted shared use. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
You are the only editor other than reviewers who has been editing the article. I don't see any other editors posting to your talk page advising you how to edit the article. So it appears that you are using an account for shared use. However, will other experienced editors please comment on whether the subject of the article is notable, and, if so, what can be done to improve the article? There are two different issues, the account, and the article itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

No, sorry maybe I didn't explain it well. I'm the only one running this, I said that there are two people only because the draft was made by me and my sister (And that's why I used this username) but she co-worked with the mind, she never logged in. About the other editors, I got notifications from "MIpearc" who edited my article. So you say he's just a reviewer. Sorry i'm new here. Hope other experienced editors will comment soon. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevieWorldwide (talk • contribs) 21:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

StevieWorldwide: your request "Could you help me understand what's wrong so that I can make it right?" suggests that you may have misunderstood the problem. It may be that the problem is not with the draft you have created, but that its subject simply isn't notable. If that is the case, there is nothing you can do about it. Maproom (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Maproom: Thank you. So I don't have to prove that he's notable but experienced editors will check that, right?--StevieWorldwide (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
StevieWorldwide: If you don't demonstrate that he is notable, the draft will be declined. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) StevieWorldwide: That is not what I meant. If you don't provide evidence that he is notable, there are three things that might happen. (1) An experienced editor looks for evidence and adds it to the draft. The draft eventually gets accepted as an article. Or (2) an experienced editor looks for evidence, fails to find it, and the draft gets rejected if resubmitted. Or (3) no-one bothers checking (we are all volunteers here) and the draft gets rejected if resubmitted. My point was that if he is not in fact notable, there will be nothing you, or anyone else, can do to prove that he is. You should not assume that there is "something you can do to make it right". Maproom (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
To restate what Maproom has said, slightly differently, not every musician, or entertainer, or person in any other line of work, or corporation, or product, is notable. If the subject isn't notable, there is nothing that the author can do to get the article accepted. If the draft doesn't establish notability, you can try to find additional information to establish notability. That doesn't mean that you will find it; it doesn't mean that you won't. You can ask for help in finding evidence of notability, but some experienced editors are willing to help you find evidence of notability, and some would prefer that you do it yourself. Not every subject is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
There are basically two major classes of reasons why drafts are declined: Style reasons, and notability reasons. If a draft is declined for style reasons only, and not for notability reasons, it can probably be fixed. If a draft is declined for notability reasons, you might be able to add evidence of notability, but the subject might not be notable anyway. (Some drafts have both notability and style issues. Also, some drafts are frivolous, but yours is not. It just has notability issues.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


ok, got it! Thanks to both of you! So I can say that the subject is notable because:

  • Has had a single he co-wrote the song "My Demons" performed by Starset and it was on national music chart for weeks. In fact, the label "Razor & Tie Music Publishing" claimed "Starset’s first single, “My Demons” is now in the Top 5 at Mainstream Rock Radio and has been on the Billboard chart for a record-setting 41 weeks. This marks the longest chart run of the year at the format and the longest chart climb to the Top 5 for any artist since the launch of the chart in 1981" [1] [2]
  • He released two albums with the major record label Island Records: "Wall Of People" and "Break Through The Silence" as frontman and composer of the band "Monty Are I" [3]

I added this to the draft, hope that's enough. Anyway I'll be searching for more tomorrow.--StevieWorldwide (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The first of those sources doesn't mention him, the second shows that he co-wrote a lyric, and the third refers to his "versatile guitar". I doubt any of this qualifies as "significant coverage". Maproom (talk) 09:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Robert McClenon:
Maproom: In order to find help I've just read again the biography for Tomo Milicevic [4] , who is the guitarist of the same band as Stevie Aiello, and I can't understand what is remarkable for him that I could add also for Aiello.

During his career Aiello has made much more then Milicevic but it seems not notable, could I know why?StevieWorldwide (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC) > StevieWorldwide (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

StevieWorldwide, if you want to ping other users, as you have just tried with Robert McClenon and Maproom, then you need to do so at the same time as signing your post. Adding pings to a post from two days ago won't result in them getting notifications. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Razor & Tie Music Publishing". Razor & Tie Music Publishing. Retrieved 2016-01-17.
  2. ^ "Written by: Steve Aiello, Dustin Bates and Rob Graves". LyricWikia. Retrieved 2016-01-17.
  3. ^ "AllMusic". Allmusic.com. Retrieved 2016-01-17.
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomo_Mili%C4%8Devi%C4%87


Cordless Larry: thank you!

Complete article

I am not sure if this is a question that I can even ask, but I will try asking it. I have been struggling with an article for a while. I do not have the experience or patience to correctly create the page. It is possible to ask if one of the seasoned editors might be able to correct the issues with my article so that I can submit it and have it accepted?

Sincerely, Heather

Re: Andreas Borgeas Article

Helkins (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Heather. Considering that you have never edited here before, you have done a very good job of creating a candidate article in Draft:Andreas Borgeas. I realise that having it rejected three times must be discouraging, but I don't think you should feel discouraged. The only problem, I suspect, is that Mr. Borgeas is not in fact notable, despite your excellent efforts. I hope you will remain as an editor, you have shown that you have skills which can be put to good use here. But I would advise you to stick to routine editing of existing articles for a while, there are many things you could do which are much easier than creating a new article. Maproom (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Linking image from Wikimedia to draft article

I'm having trouble linking this image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Johannes_Theodor_Baargeld to a Wiki page draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dadaglobe. Any assistance would be appreciated. Gaw54 (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gaw54. Here is the easy method. The link you provided takes me to a category containing three related images at Wikimedia Commons. Click on the image you prefer. At the top of the image page, there will be a menu bar, and one of the choices will have the Wikipedia "W" logo and "Use this file". Click that and the appropriate wikicode will be generated. Copy that line of code and return to the Wikipedia article, and paste it into the correct place in the wikicode for the article. The final section of the code after the last "|" generates the caption. By default, the file name appears there. You can edit that final part to create a more explanatory caption. Save your changes, and the image will display in the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Editing an article you know to be wrong

Good Day I have a simple question. In the section on the Falklands war the attribution of the message which begins WE HAVE LOTS OF NEW FRIENDS is wrong. It was not the governers telex operator who typed this it was me. My name is Charles Keenleyside and I worked as an Engineer at the Cable and Wireless at the time. Can anyone help with this as the citations are wrong Charlesk1953 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Charlesk1953
As you can see in the article, that information is based upon an article in the New York Times, which we deem as a reliable source. Before that can be removed, or even qualified, you will need another, equally reliable, independent source to confirm your version of events. If you have such a source that can be quoted, but 34 yaers later, that may be difficult to prove. - Arjayay (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@Arjayay: Looking at the NY Times reference, I see nothing to support the statement in 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands that is being disputed here. It simply attributes the conversation to two "subscribers", so the disputed statement appears to be WP:UNSOURCED. Murph9000 (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Charlesk1953, I am one of the editors who reverted you and left the message ref the Teahouse on your talk page. We have two policies that you need to be aware of. First of all verifiability, which means that it has to be possible to verify the statement being made. To verify, we would need what would be classified as a reliable source per WP:RS that confirms the version of events. Reliable sources would typically be a reference book, a newspaper article etc but I'm afraid whilst I don't doubt your story your personal recollection is not something we can accept. As Murph9000 indicated the current edit doesn't reflect the source so I've copyedited it to match. One of the other factors in people reverting your edits is that you named someone, we now know it was yourself. In general, we wouldn't name an individual unless it was needed per our WP:BLP policy. Regards, WCMemail 19:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Charlesk1953 e-mailed me this article from the BBC. It clearly states "The newsroom had Argentine claims, but nothing else apart from a laconic message from the Cable and Wireless station on the Falklands - "we have a lot of new friends"."
This is a very good reference for C&W's involvement, although it does not mention Charles Keenleyside. However, as already stated by User:Wee Curry Monster above, "we wouldn't name an individual unless it was needed per our WP:BLP policy" - Arjayay (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Just Bee Drinks

I reviewed Draft: Just Bee Drinks and declined it as reading like an advertisement. An IP, probably User:Pasturelanddelis logged out, asked me on my talk page: “Hi Robert - thanks for reviewing the article I wrote on Just Bee Drinks. I wanted to write this page as the company is a supplier to my Deli and the first drinks company of its kind in the UK. I believe this makes it very notable and the background to Just Bee Drinks has been reported in many leading publications in the UK (The Daily Telegraph, the Manchester Evening News just to name a few). I have tried to write it in as neutral way as possible and certainly don't want it to appear as an advertisement. Please can you suggest which parts you think makes it sound bias or like an advertisement so that I can amend and resubmit for review. Thanks so much for your help!” The history shows that copyright violation material has been removed. Can some other experienced editor please advise the author? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: Another reviewer declined the draft again. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

using the equation editor

It looks like I will have to use the equation editor, but there is a problem. When I open it, the editing window is very small. I can not see the code and the equation at the same time, unless I reduce text size so much as to induce severe eye strain. Is there a way to fix this? Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the equation editor myself, as it's not something I would use. If you are familiar with TeX or LaTeX, you can use that for your formulae and the like, and it's all just normal LaTeX source you type into the standard wiki source editing window. See Help:Displaying a formula. A quick example: --Murph9000 (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Murph9000. I've used TeX enough to know the logic, but not the details, of the syntax. But I find that if I go into "edit source" I can copy existing formulas and modify to get what I want. A bit inconvenient, but workable, at least for the time being. @Murph9000: Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Retired Pchem Prof and a hearty welcome to the Teahouse. How is the equation editor accessed? Or do I need to get off my duff and poke around for it? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The way I did it: Click on "edit" (not "edit source") then click on the equation; a little window will pop up, click on "edit" and you are into the editor. The equation and code appears in a window near the top of the page, with "edit" and "options" tabs. On a big monitor, or using small text, it would be fine. But with my aging eyes on a laptop, not so much. Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@Retired Pchem Prof: I do not really understand what you mean, would you be so kind to upload a screenshot? You can use something like Imgur.com and post the link here. It is possible to change the MediaWiki interface to your liking using Cascading Style Sheets. For example, we can change the width of the Formula editor with:
.oo-ui-window-frame {width:100% !important;}
If you post a link to a screenshot someone may be able to give you some CSS to change the appearance of the Formula editor. In general, when reporting computerproblems, it is a good idea to mention the name of your Operating system and Web browser. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

security of wikipedia

Do facts written about regimes that violate human rights or commit crimes against humanity lead to hacking of the site by those regimes' rulers or governments? Worse, do such authoritarian rulers come after the authors or editors of the articles, in terms of their personal profiles on the records of Wikipedia? ThomasCLee (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia lists certain notable incidents. Some of these have been governmental agencies and representatives. --Jayron32 17:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Censorship of Wikipedia also has some information on this topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Substituting a picture in an Infobox

I'm trying to edit the entry for "French Historical Studies" to reflect the new editors and cover. I managed to get everything done but the new cover. I've loaded the cover image as a gif into Wikipedia commons as French Historical Studies.gif, but the old image keeps appearing. (Old image has French Historical Studies in white and very large; new image has it much smaller in gold.) I've checked the link repeatedly and the new images is the one that comes up on Wikipedia Commons, so I don't know what I've done wrong. Is it just a question of time to propagate? Thanks for your help! uscedwardsUscedwards (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Uscedwards. The technical issue is that, while images that are at the Commons can be used here natively, just as if they were locally hosted (i.e. uploaded here), where a local image has the same file name as an image on the Commons, the local image will always be shown. This essentially means that either the image at the Commons would need to be moved to a different file name (and the infobox changed to refer to it), or the image here with the same file name would need to be deleted.

However, that technical background is not what I think should be done, because my best guess is that your upload to the Commons is invalid, and the image is a copyright violation (though not one made by you knowingly). Are you the publisher of the book, its author, the creator of the image or otherwise situated so that you might own this image – retained or had its ownership legally transferred to you? You might be, in which case there's no issue, just so long as you understand that you're giving up most of your rights to the image by licensing it under CC-By-SA 4.0. In that case, ask for the local image to be deleted (since its fair use would be rendered invalid by a free equivalent existing). You can use {{subst:Rfu}} and explain in the edit summary the existence of the Commons image with a link to it.

On the other hand, do you have no ownership whatever over the image, but had thought (as is not at all uncommon) that by scanning or uploading it, it somehow became your "own work", and so you could provide a free copyright license for it?

If the latter is the case, what I suggest you do is:

i) go the the Commons and mark the page for speedy deletion, e.g., by editing the page and placing something like {{Speedydelete|1=My own upload. I was unaware that I did not become the owner of its copyright by scanning and uploading the image.}};

ii) go the the local image page, File:French Historical Studies.gif, and click near the bottom of the page " • Upload a new version of this file" and upload the new image under the same claim of fair use already present on the page and then;

iii) Mark the prior version for deletion by clicking edit at the top of the page and placing this template: {{subst:orfurrev}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Fughettaboutit. I actually do have the right to post the image on Wikipedia; I'm one of the journal's editors and I post will full permission, in fact the urging of, the press that prints the journal. I'll go sort things out! uscedwardsUscedwards (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Great. Cheers!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Honda NSX

Hello I want to create an article on the upcoming Supercar the Honda. I belive that thie upcoming generation of cars should be in a separate page than the original generation. Can this be done?

WindySteppe (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Winterysteppe Welcome to Teahouse. Yes, we can create article on each model of car if it passes general notability. There is Category:Honda vehicles which lists various Honda vehicles. If the article you wanted to create is just variant of Honda NSX car then it will be better to add it to main article. If it has enough sources and matter then we can create separate article on it.--Human3015 It will rain  19:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Human3015 Mind if i ask if you can look at my sandbox at this link?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Winterysteppe/sandbox. It is directly copied from the Honda NSX page and it has 27 sources. Would this count under the general notability?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterysteppe (talk • contribs)

Winterysteppe So you were talking about splitting of article. Then kindly read WP:CFORK. As per my opinion, both cars are related and it is same model with some improvements, so it may not need separate article. Nearly every car has such upgraded models. It is better to include all info in one article. --Human3015 It will rain  19:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Winterysteppe, still I will suggest you to take opinion of experts in this project. You can start discussion at Talk:Honda NSX, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports Car Racing. You may hope for better reply. Or discuss this issue on talk page of any experienced regular editor of Car articles.--Human3015 It will rain  19:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thank you for the prompt response! I understand the concerns and will read it. Winterysteppe (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Winterysteppe. Please see the edit summaries shown for my edits to your sandbox spanning this diff. In short, when you copy existing content you must provide copyright attribution. I repaired the issue with the first edit summary shown and then blanked the sandbox again, as you left it, in the second, with links in that edit summary to a page explaining the issue more fully.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfairly declined, despite more references

Hi, My article on Moritz Götze, one of Germany's most relevant contemporary artists, has been declined twice. The first time was justified and I put more references in. I am very unhappy about the second reply which suggests the article reads like an advert for the artist. This is nonsense. My tone is neutral, I have nothing to do with the artist, I just thought, he should be represented, as his work is appreciated and loved by many. He has exhibitions not only in Germany, but in the US, India and soon in London. What can I do? Once the page is up, surely other people can add more references? Slothberina Slothbearina (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Convenience link: Draft:Moritz_Goetze.
Slothbearina: It's not how many references there are that's the problem, it's their quality. At present, there's only one (the Mitteldeutsche Zeitung) that does anything to establish his notability. And "Once the page is up, surely other people can add more references" suggests that you have misunderstood something. Notability needs to be established before the article goes up. Other people can already add more (and preferably better) references, if they can find any. Maproom (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit clash)Hello, Slothbearina and welcome to the Teahouse. The article in question is Draft:Moritz Goetze. Also pinging the reviewer, @RadioFan:. I am sorry if you are finding the process frustrating. It can take several attempts to get the article into line with Wikipedia's way of doing things, especially they are strict about biographies of living people. I encourage you to stick with it and to contact the reviewers if you have specific questions about their comments.
From a brief look, I did notice a couple of things that you could start with - expressions like "His father ... was one of the most original artists of the counter-culture movement" may be okay if it is a quote from a reliable source, but not as a bald statement - who says so? Similarly, comments like "the East German authorities had blocked his development as an artist" need a good source. These both come from the first paragraph of "Life", which only gives one reference at the end of the paragraph - but that reference does not say anything that relates to any statement in the paragraph; it appears to be just a website that sells art books etc. You need to build the article based on what is stated in the references. Not just adding more references, but references that support the statements made in the article.
So where did you find out that his father was "one of the most original artists of the counter-culture movement"? Put it as a reference. Where did you find out "the East German authorities had blocked his development as an artist"? Put it as a reference. And so on for the rest of the article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions on my Moritz Götze article!

That gives me something to work with. I appreciate your help a lot! SlothbearinaSlothbearina (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

There are some very strong claims in the article such as "Moritz Götze is a representative of German pop-art." that could be used to demonstrate the notability of the subject per wikipedias guidelines for creative professionals, but these claims aren't clearly backed up with references to reliable 3rd party sources, as others have pointed out above.
You are apparently a fan of this artist, which is great, but it can be difficult to write in a neutral, encyclopedic tone when you are a fan. This is why Wikipedia is based around reliable sources. Summarize what the reliable sources are saying, dont synthesize or add your own opinion or even conclusions. Passages where the main idea is to heap praise the subject such as "His thematic repertoire as well as his materials of choice is exceptionally varied" are not neutral in tone. Passages such like this: "As an autodidact he initially attracted attention with colourful prints and paintings depicting forlorn young " read like they were taken from a promotional brochure or gallary notes (which are often written by the artist or their management). Passages like this stick out to reviewers, When I read this I did some checking to see if it had been taken directly from a source wikipedia would not have the rights to copy in fact.
In short, start with the references, ensure those references meet Wikipedia guidelines, and then summarize those references. This will resolve all of the problems I and other reviewers have raised.--RadioFan (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Race to Alaska: appropriate topic and who should write it?

Hello -

My husband created an amazing 750 mile, self-supported, human powered, sailing/rowing race from Port Townsend, WA to Ketchikan, AK. It is called the Race to Alaska or R2AK. It started last year and in June of 2016 the second annual race will begin. It's epic and unique and I think it truly deserves a Wiki article.

Does this sound like a good topic for a Wiki article? And if so, is it something I should write or does it need to be written by someone more objective? There are lot of press articles on the race from last year but my main source would definitely be my husband because he created it. Any guidance would be really appreciated.

Here's a link to the R2AK website if you want to learn more about it: www.r2ak.com

Thank you so much for your help! Jean Jean Scarboro (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You have a conflict of interest. You aren't neutral, and Wikipedia should be neutral. I don't know if your event is notable, but, from the language that you have used, it is unlikely that you will be able to write a neutral description of the event. Read WP:Your first article, and try submitting a draft via Articles for Creation, knowing that the draft that you submit will probably be declined, either for notability reasons (and I can't comment on those, having not seen the draft that does not yet exist), or for style reasons. If it is declined for style reasons, which it probably will be, please either try to work with other editors to make it a neutral draft, not a promotional draft, or ask them for help, and some editors are more willing to help remove promotional language from drafts than others. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it too easy to submit things to AFC that are not meant to be drafts of articles?

I reviewed User:Owenave/sandbox and declined it, as having insufficient context, and not knowing what the intended subject was.

User:Owenave then asked: I was not submitting an article. I thought I was submitting a description of who I was as a commentator and editor. Someone also flagged a picture that was NOT a violation of copyright. I am the owner of the picture and was taken with my camera by a friend. Thanks Larry Rust

The editor did so submit a draft article. My question for the Teahouse is whether it is too easy for editors to submit what they do not intend to be draft pages. It has very often been clear that what are really AFC submissions are not meant to be AFC submissions. Do we need to go to Articles for Creation talk or to Village Pump policy to make it less easy for inexperienced editors to submit things that are not meant to be article drafts? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon. I made a small edit to the main AfC page to emphasize that we are looking for encyclopedia articles. Any way that we can help very new editors understand what we mean by "article" is useful. New editors usually do not understand the concept of separate "spaces", with main space being the openly public encyclopedia. The concept of article talk space, Wikipedia space, Wikipedia talk space, User space, User talk space, draft, template and all the other spaces. . . Well, it is confusing and easy to think everything is an article. In my opinion, just decline these submissions with a friendly message oriented to newcomers. Just invite them to the Teahouse, or something. By the way, is this too much "inside baseball" for our readers? Other opinions welcomed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I see that User:Owenave/sandbox still has a Submit button, with the source comment "Do not remove this line!". It appeared there when the user first created the sandbox. So, an inexperienced user who was trying to create a user page about himself found that it had a Submit button on it, and naturally clicked it. The problem is with software putting a Submit button on something that is not a draft and was never intended to be a draft. Maproom (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_443&oldid=1039080377"