Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 303

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

Archive 300

Archive 301

Archive 302

→

query

Hello I am editing '2015 national games of India'. In the subtopic 'medals tally' there is a table with column heading 'nation' and I want to change it to 'states' how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asug1996 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Asug1996, welcome to the Teahouse. The source code says {{RankedMedalTable|...}} in the place where the column headings are displayed. That means Template:RankedMedalTable is used. The documentation there shows how to change the column heading. I fixed it in [1]. See more at Help:A quick guide to templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me if my article draft sounds objective?

Do you have any tips or edit suggestions for my draft of RealSelf? This is my first time trying to submit an article! What do you think of my sources? Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks!RealSimone (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Realsimone (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Realsimone. First of all, thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest on your user page. That is the ethical thing to do, and you have coomplied with Wikipedia's Terms of Service by doing so.

When you ask about the draft being "objective", what you probably meant was whether it was written from the neutral point of view. When I read your draft, I saw no major problems with NPOV. Instead, I wondered about notability. I want to see clearly presented references that show notability of the company. Your references are poorly formatted, and are not inline references. Please read Referencing for beginners for how to improve them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

How do I enter/ link copyright information to an uploaded jpg?

I have inherited the copyright from a book published by my late father. I have uploaded images from this book, but cannot figure out how to prove this/ enter or link this to the jpg in question.

Thanks!Jafleckiii (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jafleckiii. Thank you for being willing to share copyrighted materials that you inherited from your father. That is a fitting tribute to both of you. Since this is a somewhat unusual copyright donation, I recommend that you contact OTRS. They are a trusted team of Wikimedia volunteers who handle a variety of special matters involving privacy, legality and foundation policy. They communicate mostly by email. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Which "Operating system" section type should mobile devices use?

Currently, there are 2 "clear" "Operating system" section types, used for some recent Android devices.

They are (e.g.: HTC One (M8)):

Original: Android 4.4.2 "KitKat"
Current: Android 5.0.1 "Lollipop"

and (e.g.: Samsung Galaxy S5):

Android 4.4.2 "KitKat"
Current: Android 5.0 "Lollipop"

Which one should be used? --Diblidabliduu (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Diblidabliduu: This isn't the place to ask that question. This is the teahouse talk page. The teahouse is where editors ask questions related to editing Wikipedia. This page is the wp:talk page for the teahouse, where hosts discuss issues related to how we can assist editors asking questions in the actual tea house. I think what you want is this page: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing The reference desk is similar to a reference desk in a library where you can go and ask general questions. It is divided up into various sections based on the kind of question. I think the computing ref desk that I linked to above is the most appropriate place to aks your question. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: Wasn't the OP was asking about how the "| os" parameter in {{Infobox mobile phone}} ought to be completed? In which case the format as used in Template:Infobox mobile phone#Examples would seem a reasonable one to follow. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, thanks for correcting. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Need clarification of how to demonstrate "notability" of subject

My article on Silent Spring Institute (www.silentspring.org) was not accepted because the editor felt that the “submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. I was advised to “improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia” by adding “citations to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.”

I cited a number of peer-reviewed articles written by Silent Spring scientists; how can those be “entirely independent of the subject”? I also cited reports on Silent Spring’s work published in respected journals, including "Environmental Health Perspectives" and "Environmental Science and Technology"; why are these not considered “secondary reliable sources”? Furthermore, I included the fact that Harvard University considered Silent Spring notable important enough to acquire and catalogue its papers. I am unclear why the submission was not accepted.

65.96.211.80 (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. First off, please remember to sign in. Your IP address may change, but if you are signed in we can communicate with you on your personal talk page. Now for your question. Notability is the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. Notability is "multiple reliable secondary sources discussing the subject in detail". It has nothing to do with what the organization has published. It has everything to do with what has been published about the organization. Companies and organizations have another notability hurdle. The sources have to show that the organization has been made note of in a wide geographic area. In other words, if all the sources are local to metro Boston, notability has not been shown. As an aside, I would have declined the draft as promotional. It reads more like a press release than an encyclopedia article. John from Idegon (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, unknown person. Welcome to the Teahouse, where we sometimes have different opinions. For example, I would submit that The Cape Cod Times is certainly a WP:Reliable source and could be used to attest to the organization's WP:Notability. If this is all you have right now, you could mark your submission as a WP: Stub. I see your draft is at Draft:Silent_Spring_Institute. I will take a look at it and try to help you. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I was WP:Bold and prepared a new article, using some of your information, which I posted at Silent Spring Institute. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarification about sockpuppet/meatpuppet policy

Hi, I have seen the following two comments made recently by two different admins on their respective talk pages:

Acting on behalf of a banned editor is not, in and of itself, in violation of any policy currently written. [2]

We do not draw a distinction between use of multiple accounts and multiple editors pursuing an identical agenda in collusion. [3]

Could someone please reconcile these views for me? I legitimately don't understand what's going on here. How is it that editors who "pursue an identical agenda" are assumed to be "colluding" (how could it be evidenced?) and this is not allowed when they're all "live" editors, but edits made "on behalf of" a banned editor (i.e., pursuing the same "agenda") are okay? If someone has explicitly arranged to make edits "on behalf of" the banned editor, how is that not "collusion", but a coincidence of views of new editors somehow is? 70.24.6.142 (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I normally don't answer questions at the teahouse, but I think I could help out. When the policy says "edits pursuing an identical agenda in collusion", it's not referring to a coincidence of views of new editors as you say, but rather when it says editors working collusion it refers to a group of people who organize to push an agenda. Pishcal — ♣ 19:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Page was not approved, need to improve referencing.

Hi,

I submitted a page, and was told that the article was nearly there, but needed additional sources. I added more sources, and the page was declined for the same reason. I'm not sure what else I can do. How many more sources do I need? Any feedback is appreciated. Thank you. CPHansen2 (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

CPHansen2 hello and welcome to The Teahouse. The last comment said that national or possibly regional sources to confirm notability were needed. Can you find any articles in national newspapers (The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune) or magazines that cover the company in some detail?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Improving an article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Seong-chan is a recently created page. And i wan't someone to help me enriching it. So how could I ask somebody to contribute to it? aGastya 18:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgastyaC (talk • contribs)

AgastyaC hello and welcome to The Teahouse. The topic above (or possibly below when this is archived) is similar. Go to WP:BLP/N.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Accidental account

I accidentally added an account, SandKitty356. Could an admin please delete it? Thank you. Kitty 56 (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kitty 56, and welcome to the teahouse. We can't delete accounts. But it doesn't matter much; just abandon the account and don't use it. We're not too fuzzed with the littering of unused accounts, no harm done. Martijn Hoekstra (talk)

Thank you so much. Kitty 56 (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Page not approved due to not enough notability

Hi there,

I created an article and it was not approved. A wikipedia editor said I should have references like news articles. So I then added some news articles as references and sent it in for approval again. I was given the same exact reason as before, as if I had not added enough. How much is enough? I have never created a wikipedia page before so maybe I am missing something?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

-Alea174.88.144.106 (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. This is your only edit to Wikipedia from this IP address and there is no account named Alea. If you log in under your account and comment here, or provide a link to the draft article, a Teahouse host will give you specific advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you have to tell us what is the article you're talking about. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alea. I am assuming this is about Draft:GTAnet. (To others: this was identified by looking up Alea at Special:listusers). As noted at the draft, "Most of your sources are from the GTAnet website itself. Are there any news articles written about GTAnet in newspapers?". In that regard, the sources we are looking for to establish a basis for notability and for verification of content are reliable, secondary sources, entirely unconnected with the topic, that discuss the topic substantively. If such sources do not exist then Wikipedia should not have an article on the topic. Not only are the majority of sources you cited from GTAnet itself, but many of the others are just press releases from GTAnet, regurgitated at other sites. Of the others, I see not one that meets these requirements. One is a dead link. Others don't mention GTAnet at all, much less provide substantive content about it. Others mention it in passing. We are not looking for confirmation of its existence, which is not in dispute. We're looking for reliable sources upon which the article's content can be shown to have already been the subject of publication out in the world, by sources that exercise editorial control and have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I don't think such sources exist and so I don't think an article should exist, but if they do, the sources presented in the draft are not them. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor in question is Alea Drain. Thanks for your detective work, Fuhghettaboutit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for these tips. Your points are taken and it makes a certain amount of sense to me. I am curious, however, that pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANARIE , have been published even though it appears that most of the references are from the CANARIE site itself. It is also associated with GTAnet. :-/205.211.168.17 (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

For clarity, my response above is to CULLEN. I am so unclear even how to be a part of the discussion properly! Apologies! - Alea 205.211.168.17 (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Feral Five

Hi Alea and esteemed Tea House hosts.

I've been testing my editing on a couple of different things and noticed an interesting challenge to do with notability here: draft:Feral Five - I saw this band in London a while back and wanted find out more and it appears they have had some attention from people like the BBC music people and made the first track talking about replicating people using 3D printers (very topical right now since you can 3D print almost anything). I figured they're notable for that at least so should in essence despite their relative newness meet notability guidelines but I noted the article hasn't been resubmitted despite a number of changes by one or two editors. It would be interesting to know what else might be suggested if anything which would give a clearer idea of what is enough!! My thoughts are that it is not quantity but quality and I've done some reading about what is considered independent, verifiable and quality. Any guidance would be welcomed and might help Alea also with understanding. I'd also be interested to know what the page is over there too. Chantelle Cooper (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Chantelle Cooper! I moved your post to a subsection, as it is not directly related to the above question by Alea. What is exactly your question? If you improved Draft:Feral Five, why didn't you re-submit it yourself? Vanjagenije (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, you are the one I was, in fact, directing my question below to. The one that references the CANARIE page.

Chantelle, I appreciate your comment as well and am open to any and all tips and hints! -Alea Alea Drain (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Alea Drain: Hi again Alea. Please see by way of analogy what about article X? In short, the fact that there are other non-compliant articles on Wikipedia tells you very little about what is compliant or acceptable. There is no central authority running things so we have gobs of articles that should be deleted or need improvement or violate policies and remain because they have not been looked at. In other words, the existence of comparable or more problematic articles has little precedential value. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Help with article "Hookworm"

I don't think the article "Hookworm" should be mostly about humans.Dogs are only mentioned once, and that isn't right for me.Qqwe2 (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Qqwe2. Our article Hookworm is primarily about the three species of such worms which infect about 500 million people worldwide, mostly in less-developed tropical countries. The lead section of the article mentions and links to other species which infect dogs and cats. The most common species in dogs is Ancylostoma caninum, and you will see that it is a major, well developed article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Qqwe2: If you think the article is unduly focused on the hookworks that infect humans, I'd recommend starting a discussion at Talk:Hookworm. Good luck! Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Uncertain of an acceptable approach

I asked this question a few days back- but it may have been lost in the abyss, as I had not yet created a user page. My apologies if someone answered, but I received nothing at that time. Here is my apparent dilemma: I serve as president of the Edwin James Society. We are active in a number of areas- all science-related. We spend tremendous amounts of energy on research, and in the past 5 or so years, have achieved some nifty breakthroughs. Last week I attempted to enter some of that info to existing articles that were very much connected- e.g. biodiversity, biogeography, bio-invasion. Apparently those edits were quickly deleted due to a perceived conflict of interest- i.e., I am the one driving the train of these discoveries.

While a portion of our company is for profit- i.e., agricultural operations & scientific consulting; our research & publishing is not-for-profit. While retain all copyrights, our work is published and available for consumption- free of any charge. Thus I was not spamming or profiteering, but it seems I gave that impression last week. Our desire is to communicate our scholarly achievements to a broader audience, as they appear to have significant applications. Wiki seems like a good place for this. So my questions are (sorry for the long way getting here):

1) How do we appropriately communicate there is no conflict of interest &

2) Would it be better to create & submit a new article encapsulating these discoveries, or should I try top add info to existing articles?

Thanks David Sabaj-Stahl (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, David Sabaj-Stahl. The first thing that you should do is completely transform your user page, which is currently written as an unreferenced faux encyclopedia article. Your user page should be about you as a Wikipedia editor and should not promote any of your outside interests. It should, however, include a clear statement disclosing your conflict of interest. Brief, non-promotional biographical information is permitted, but nothing that simulates an encyclopedia article.

Next, please be aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. It is not a place to publicize new research. So, it is inappropriate for you to add your research to the article on Biodiversity, for example, unless independent reliable sources unconnected with your organization discuss that research. Because of your clear conflict of interest, you should not add any such material to such articles yourself, but instead, you should propose changes, along with references, on the article's talk page.

So, please do not try to claim that that there is no conflict of interest in this case, because there certainly is. Instead, disclose it openly, and please comply with our expectations about how editors with conflicts of interest should behave.

Copyrighted material can be quoted briefly here, as long as it is a reliable source, and is cited. But our policies forbid extensive use of copyrighted sources, even if given away for free, unless that material is freely and openly available for reuse for any purpose under an acceptable Creative Commons license. Attribution is the only accepted limitation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to make it clear (and add to Cullen's excellent post): conflict of interest and promotional writing can occur in non-profit and academic circles as well as commercial enterprises. A lot of people get stuck with this issue. LouiseS1979^(pigeonhole) 07:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Need Syntax Help

Hello Again, Let me elaborate my question. While working on the Bidar page, I have found that there is a section titled Ghulam Yazdani's contribution to Bidar which do not belong to the page. I have also found out that there exists another page on wikipedia titled Ghulam Yazdani. I want to propose a merger for which I am stuck with syntax. I am aware of the syntax {{merge from|article name|date=February 2015}} which would be applicable for entire page. My question is - How to add only the section of a page for merger. What is the syntax for section merging? Anand2202 (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anand2202:, the template you want is {{Move portions from}}. Nthep (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks @Nthep: Much appreciated! :) Anand2202 (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Misspellings

Hello,

I am new to Wikipedia and have already ameneded a few spelling mistakes, in addition to correcting some information on an article.

Is there any way to know how many corrections I have made without keeping my own records?

Secondly, how do I know if information I changed on an article has been accepted?

Thanks,

Woodstockboy22Woodstockboy22 (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey there, Woodstockboy22, First & foremost, I am also new here (I mean I am not a Tea House host) so I am not sure if Technically I have the right or authority of answering your question. But I am compelled to do so! :) Well, on the top-right corner of your page you can see PREFERENCES where under User Profile you have the Number of Edits. There's also the CONTRIBUTIONS option (near the LOG OUT button) which maintains a list & details of your activity. This satisfies your first question, I suppose.

Regarding your second question, @Woodstockboy22:, changes made to articles can be tracked under VIEW HISTORY option (along side the EDIT) on the page. Whenever you edit or change some info on a article, add it to your watchlist. You will be updated automatically.

Happy editing! :) Anand2202 (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Woodstockboy22. In general your corrections are acceptable, but you need to be a little more careful. In one case the spelling in the reference in the article was what the source used, and this was highlighted by the inclusion of "(sic)" and by a note in the reference to highlight the spelling. In your most recent edit you changed from the correct spelling to an incorrect spelling. I have therefore reverted both of those edits. Thanks for your efforts, but please be a little more careful. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

trying to post a article

Ryanlee78creativebugs (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC) i keep getting issue trying to post an article. it said self promote.

can anyone help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ryanlee78creativebugs/sandbox

Ryanlee78creativebugs (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ryanlee78creativebugs:, a look at the article suggests to me that the problem is the tone that you have used. Let me take just one paragraph;

They offer data and voice services to Government, Enterprises, SMEs and SMIs. As the broadband solutions provider, REDtone is the only service provider in the industry with a unique suite of last-mile technologies such as Wireless Point-To-Point, Metro E, Fibre, Satellite, LTE (4G), ADSL, WiMAX and Microwave. This enables us to provide infrastructure integration expertise and broadband-on-demand. REDtone is the No.1 Discounted Call Service Provider in Malaysia. They boast an impressive track record and were awarded the “Alternative Service Provider of the Year” by Frost & Sullivan in 2005, 2007 and 2009. Designed for business customers, our discounted call services offer savings of up to 90%.
— User:Ryanlee78creativebugs/sandbox

In a short paragraph there are two uses of us/our which suggests that the whole section is lifted from a company brochure or press release. Then every other sentence makes a claim to be number #1 or unique without any independent, reliable sources to support what is written. Prove they are the only service provider supplying those technologies? Who says they have an impressive track record? Who has verified that that they ofer call savings of up to 90%? Find independent sources to back up these claims and then they may have a place in the article but not as it currently stands. I've singled out one paragraph but I have to say the rest of the article is the same and the whole draft currently does nothing but act as a sales brochure for the company. Nthep (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ryanlee78creativebugs: I have placed a box at top of User:Ryanlee78creativebugs/sandbox with a button to submit it for review. However, the current version is far too promotional. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ryanlee78creativebugs. To pick up one work which is a bugbear of mine. The only circumstances I can think of where the word "solutions" might be appropriate in a Wikipedia article is in an article about physical chemistry, or about puzzles. In almost any other context it is meaningless marketing speak, and doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia.

Creating a Formal Tone

Hi there,

My article 'Pan Intercultural Arts' was not accepted due to a lack of formal tone expected of an encyclopaedia article. There are a number of independent, reliable and published sources cited, so I'm looking for some clarity/guidance in how to go about developing the article's formal tone.

Many thanks for your help, I look forward to hearing from you!

Bruns crt (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Bruns crt hello and welcome to The Teahouse. The most obvious problems I can see are that the main section quotes from sources when it would probably be better to present the information in your own words, and that the other section is structured like a company web site (and has some of the same promotional-looking wording such as "engender" and "empower") when it would look better as paragraphs.

It would be better to define exactly what the various terms mean for those who know nothing about the organisation, and to explain how the organisation does those activities that are described, using the independent sources of course.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, I will re-work the page with you recommendations Bruns crt (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Nominating an article for DYK

Hi. I recently created this account, having edited for a while with various IP addresses. I created the article Inclusive Church, which is, I think, eligible to go on the "did you know?" section of the Main Page. Apparently new users can't nominate articles, so they have to ask someone else to do it. I did so here, but haven't received a reply. Should I just go ahead and nominate it myself, or am I missing something?

Thanks for your help, and thanks for this page.

Relentlessly (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Relentlessly: Hi Relentlessly. Just so you know you will become autoconfirmed on February 7, 2015 at 19:32 (UTC), but your concern about passing that threshold is not germane, as nominating an article for DYK does not involved any autoconfirmation-restricted acts. DYK nominations are not restricted from new users at all. (I'm curious about what made you think they were.) You can go ahead right now and create the nomination. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks for your reply. The DYK project page suggests you do need to be autoconfirmed: "Any autoconfirmed registered user may nominate a DYK suggestion" from here. But I'll go ahead and do it, with your imprimatur! Relentlessly (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Relentlessly: Aha. That error crept in when the instructions were placed into a header (Template talk:Did you know/Header), which was recently created. I first tested it to make sure I was correct (noting also that T:TDYK is not semi-protected which would then require an autoconfirmed user to edit the list of nominations) and then fixed it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing Page Name

Hi,

I am trying to edit the page name and having difficulty in doing so. For my specific example the URL is showing as User:RajLiberal and along with the page name appearing as User:RajLiberal.

I am trying to remove the 'User'part and am having trouble doing so. Any idea how I can achieve this?RajLiberal (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi RajLiberal, welcome to the Teahouse. The short answer is: please don't. You have created a user page which is not an appropriate Wikipedia article. Have you read the notes on your talk page, specifically about creating an autobiography? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I have created this on behalf of the person on the page strictly as an informative page and not to promote anything on his behalf. I am a first time contributor to Wikipedia and if you could guide my in the right direction on how to correct this page, that would be greatly appreciated. RajLiberal (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Your page (now deleted) was promoting the person himself. If you want to create an article, the first step is determining if he meets Wikipedia's definition of notable (WP:BIO). Are there newspaper articles that cover him? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I will review (WP:BIO) and determine if he meets the definition. And to answer your question, yes, there are newpaper articles that cover him. RajLiberal (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@RajLiberal: when reviewing WP:BIO, note particularly the section WP:POLITICIAN - just being an unelected candidate for political office does not confer WP:Notability, so press cuttings about his candidacy will not be enough. The reason for this guideline is that Wikipedia does not wish to be used as an noticeboard for election statements. If Mr Grewal is elected, there will then be no problem about notability. If you are connected with Mr Grewal's campaign, you should also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and the WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. JohnCD (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What is this??

Colliding Tori Fusion Reactor - (CTFR) The legal team has reason to believe that the material that was posted here was a protected trade secret and determined removal was the best choice of action. Please do not hesitate to contact the legal team (legal@wikimedia.org) with any questions or concerns you may have. 2011‑12‑13

Just wanted to know. Kitty 56 (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Kitty 56. Occasionally, someone adds material to Wikipedia that is illegal to post publicly. In some cases, the legal team at the WMF (the organization that runs Wikipedia) will get involved and delete the material. What you've copied above is just a note informing editors what happened and who to contact if they have questions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Kitty 56 (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I got a message about spamming, please help :/

I started my account yesterday with no intention whatsoever about spamming. I had relevant information on my site that pertained to all the information that I linked to. - I received this message earlier today.

"This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Do not continue to spam links to Cinechew. This is your only warning. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)"

Like I said, I have no intentions of spamming I just want to contribute. Can someone please tell me specifically what I did wrong so it doesn't happen again? Does this mean that I can never link to my site?

Seangonzales (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Seangonzales, welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you should never link to a site you are involved with as you have a conflict of interest. Also, we rarely link to blogs and personal sites unless they're by a recognized expert on the topic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Seangonzales. Your experience mirrors mine exactly. Please don't be discouraged. Perhaps the editor who left you the message was incorrect in assuming that you're intentions were to spam. Editors on Wikipedia are supposed to assume good faith on the part of other editors. I find the anti-spam warning to be unduly harsh myself. I don't believe it is the right thing to do to assume that your intentions are always self-promotional. I believe your contribution was viewed as spam because you are directly related to what you're writing about and you do not have a neutral point of view.

So, in a friendly way I like to let you know that contributions made by editors who are personally involved or are supply products and services related to the topic are strongly discouraged and viewed as spam even if that isn't your intention. I have posted a welcome message on your talk page. It will serve you well if you are able to read up on all of the topics that are contained in welcome message. If you do this, you will never be accused of spamming again in all probability. I also remove the warning template from your talk page and left a friendly message for the other editor who issue that warning to you to let them know that this dialogue is happening between you and myself. Happy editing.

Bfpage |leave a message 23:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Seangonzales on top of what the others have said, looking at your additions I would say its more than just linking to your own site. It looks like you just added a link to your latest Mark Hamill post as a reference next to any mention of his name. A reference is supposed to be a source for the information preceding it. How is an article "Mark Hamill talks ‘Star Wars 7′ – says its all about the new characters" a reference for any of the places you added it? As such it looks like promotion of your post, and not about adding helpful references to wikikpedia. KylieTastic (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Seangonzales was definitely spamming. We are supposed to be nice to people at the Teahouse but spam is spam no matter what the spammer calls it. The link about an upcoming Starwars Film was even added as a "reference" for Mark Hamill being on the cast of an animated Batman film from 1993.[4] The site was started this month [5] (and its' only the 7th) with Sean Gonzales as the first mentioned author. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys for everything! Like I said, it may have come across that way but I only had good intentions. For example, when I repaired the dead links for Andy Serkis, I couldn't find any links - so I took upon myself to supply it - not knowing about the COI terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seangonzales (talk • contribs) 00:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I took a look at one random instance of Seangonzales adding a reference regarding Mark Hamill. That was added to Joseph Campbell, a professor with a long career at Sarah Lawrence College, and an expert in mythology. There is a passage in Campbell's biography about how his work influenced George Lucas in creating Star Wars, and that later, one of Campbell's books had a photo of Hamill on the cover. All this happened over 35 years ago. One would assume that any reference inserted after Hamill's name in this context would have to do with Campbell, Lucas, Hamill and the book cover. But no. Instead we have a blog post speculating about how big or small Hamill's role will be in the upcoming seventh Star Wars film, to be released in December, 2015. This is spamming, indisputably, and it is difficult to discern "good intentions" unless the editor in question doesn't understand that the function of a reference is to verify the assertions in the preceding content. I hope that the purpose of a reference is clear to the editor now.

There is general consensus that we only use movie review websites that feature the work of paid professional reviewers. Random movie blogs are not considered reliable sources, either for critical opinions or factual assertions about films. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Public domain copyright question

Previously a photo I submitted for William Burke Belknap the younger was removed because it was not considered in the public domain. Since it was a photograph from the front of a Christmas card and I was sent one of those cards, it seems to me that it was in the public domain.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Mitzi.humphrey, being found in public does not mean 'Public domain' - otherwise you could claim the same for any picture on the internet not behind a login. I would assume if you looked on the back of the card if had an image copyright notice, or statement that the image was under licence. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Public domain for all the fun information on the subject ;) KylieTastic (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, KylieTastic, I appreciate your advice. I'm quite sure that neither the card which I have nor any of the places I have seen it reproduced acknowledges either a printer or a photographer. However, I will check again before re-submitting the photo if I decide to try again. Thanks again for responding to my query.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Mitzi.humphrey, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, because we allow what's published here to be re-used for any reason, including commercial purposes. So, if we accept a photo saying that it is free of copyright, or freely licensed, we need to be certain that is the case. Just because a photo has been reproduced without a copyright notice does not mean it lacks copyright. Other people reproduce photos improperly all the time, but we don't here on Wikipedia. We need hard evidence that the photo is free of copyright or freely licensed. For example, if the photo was first published before 1923, copyright has expired. If it is a work of the U.S. Federal government, it is free of copyright. If it is realeased explicitly under an acceptable Creative Commons license, it is OK to use. But the vast majority of photos you run across must be assumed to be copyrighted. The burden is on the uploaded to verify the status accurately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Francisco Fort Museum

I created an article for Francisco Fort Museum about a month ago on the Main Page Sandbox but haven't seen it published yet. I did create it first in my sandbox and then to the main. Did I do something wrong? Kholance (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kholance, welcome to the Teahouse. It seems like your draft wasn't added to the AFC review list. I've checked your sandbox and this edit says you submitted your draft for review on 12th December 2014. But I couldn't find it on the list of drafts submitted on that day. When I checked your sandbox I found out that you didn't close a <ref> tag properly. So the draft template didn't appeared properly. Like in HTML you should always close "ref" tags otherwise it will break other templates. Anyway I fixed it for you and now your article is under review .--Chamith (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION Error. Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem.

Is anyone else getting 503 errors that say something like the following, or is it just me?

WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION Error Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes. Error: 503, Service Unavailable at Thu, 05 Feb 2015 17:18:35 GMT

Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That was a temporary issue with the Wikimedia servers. It's been fixed now. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, at that moment Wikipedia was down to everyone. Wikimedia Foundation tweeted that it was due to a network problem. I don't think you are facing that issue anymore as you have accessed Teahouse, which means you can also access other Wikipedia articles.--Chamith (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

For further information, this is the summary of the site outage as published by Wikimedia Foundation.---Chamith (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is only highly useful if the internet works. If something, (say, the network fails), Wikipedia isn't really helpful. This is too bad, there should be a way for Wikipedia to be useful outside of the net. Frogger48 (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

About pending changes protection

I just wanted to ask why pending changes level 2 is never used. It seems like it could be helpful in some cases. Kitty 56 (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kitty 56, welcome to the Teahouse! Like most processes on Wikipedia, using pending changes level 2 (PC2) requires the consensus of the community. The last discussion regarding PC2 found there was no consensus for its usage. You can read a summary here and the full discussion here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What does "no consensus" mean? Kitty 56 (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello SandKitty256. "No consensus" means that a discussion took place, based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and in this case, there was no agreement to start general use of pending changes level 2. When we can't agree to change things, we leave them the way they were before the discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Need help uploading profile photo to Info Box for Lewis Craig Humphrey.

I have a family photo for placement in a new entry Lewis Craig Humphrey I created. I captured the image via Bing from my husband's family tree in Ancestry.com and it has been suggested that I upload a photo to the info box for him. I first tried to load it to WikiMedia but was unsuccessful. I seemed to be in some kind of loop of instructional templates. How do I most simply transfer this old photo from my own picture files to the info box? Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mitzi.humphrey, you can't just take images from most websites as most are copyrighted (or are using images of unknown copyright). Ancestry.com has a clear copyright stamnet on the bottom of the page. So unless the picture had some overriding statement you can not upload to commons. It may be acceptable to upload locally as "Fair use" if no other images are available. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

if you read the Ancestry Terms and Conditions you will find the statement "By agreeing to these Terms and Conditions, you agree to not reuse these images or documents except that you may reuse public domain images so long as you only use small portions of the images or documents for personal use." KylieTastic (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, talk. I think it was the upload locally as "Fair use" method that was recommended, so I will see if I can do that. Thank you for your help, Kylie.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Since Lewis Craig Humphrey died in 1927, the date of the photo is important. Copyright has expired on any photo published before 1923. If it was published later than then, the photo is probably acceptable non-free content, per WP:NFCI #10. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The bruacratic nature

The bureaucratic nature of Wikipedia really bothers me. Frogger48 (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Frogger48 in what way? Although Wikipedia has elements of bureaucracy, it is generally considered not a bureaucracy. There is structure, but everything is open to discussion and change. What in particular bothers you? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hell Frogger48, I assume that you mean all the rules and regulations here. They are what keeps this WP together and up to the standard that makes it one of the top websites in the world. Not all people who come here have the same good intentions and kind disposition that you have (unfortunately). I don't know if you have seen how other Wikipedias in other languages are, where the rules are not maintained or enforced in the way they are here. They are not a pretty sight, and those WPs quickly loose credibility and editors willing to contribute. Remember that the English WP is international and because of the rules we somehow manage to keep this thing working in ways that other international organizations can not. Best, w.carter-Talk 13:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Meta-Wiki

Okay, I have a problem. I decided to create a page on Meta-Wiki. How do I create a link from that page to my main page on Wikipedia? Kitty 56 (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kitty 56, just add meta: in front i.e. [[meta:User:SandKitty256|Kitty 56 (on Meta-Wiki)]] gives Kitty 56 (on Meta-Wiki) — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh I misread that - the other way round is add en: so [[en:User:SandKitty256|Kitty 56 (on English WikiPedia)]] gives Kitty 56 (on English WikiPedia) — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a question concerning the "creation" of a new term, word or title.

Basically, I am looking for a legitimate way to list one more meaning to an existing word in Wikip. EMPHE (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure you're thinking about Wikipedia, not Wiktionary? Thnidu (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi EMPHE, welcome to the Teahouse. Which meaning of which word do you have in mind, and do you want to create a new page about the meaning? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I need help removing COI banner from Thomas M. Humphrey

There is more info about my difficulty with the entry forThomas M. Humphrey on my talk page and on the View History. My recent additions to his article, for which I had previously but not recently removed a great deal of information which was considered COI. Thomas M. Humphrey is my husband and it was considered against Wikipedia rules for me to be a major contributor to his article. For a long time I submitted nothing more to the article, but recently I added some wikilinks to other economists' names already mentioned in the current article and a note about his being a recipient of an Earhart Foundation grant while in grad school at Tulane. The COI warning banner is back, and I want to know how to have it removed. Do I have to delete all my most recent additions, and if I do, will that be sufficient to take away the embarrassing banner?Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mitzi.humphrey. I have looked at the page about Mr. Humphrey, and I do not believe that the main problem with this article is the links that you added just recently. The page seems to be written as a tribute to him rather than as a neutral encyclopedia article, with all the most positive quotes and statements carefully chosen to make him seem as important as possible, and any just ordinary biographical information omitted. Ask yourself this: If all of the sources which (1) were written by Humphrey himself, (2) were written by his friends and colleagues with whom he worked personally, (3)were written by those employing him, and (3) don't mention him at all, were removed from the article, and the content which has been cited back to them, what would be left? A person this influential shouldn't need this; surely there are facts about him which have been written in books, magazines and newspapers that could be used to make a more balanced article. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Anne Delong (talk) You may be thinking that my husband himself has contributed to this article, but that is not true. And most of the usual biographical information (which I had previously submitted) was deleted in 2014 because I was considered a COI writer. The only words which are my husband's are taken from the introduction he wrote in one of his books about influences on his economic philosopy. The references are to sources such as published books, journals, encyclopedias, magazines, etc. for which he wrote or in which his work in the history of economic thought was discussed. Most of the wikilinks in the article are to people living or dead that he has known professionally or with whom he has co-authored works in the field of economics. The article is about as objective in its perspective as any entry could be. He has written much, much more than is indicated in the Wikipedia article--at least over 100 published articles. So, my question remains about how to remove the COI banner.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Mitzi.humphrey, I was not suggesting that your husband wrote the text of the article, although obviously the quotes are written by him. I was talking about the sources. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be sourced to material written by the subject, or people he knows. Proper sourcing would instead be published works such as books or journal articles of other economists who aren't co-workers and which discuss him and his work; news or magazine reports of his activities written by journalists; reviews of his books such as this one which describe his research and accomplishments, etc. The fact that this article appears neutral to you is a very good example of why it's not recommended that editors write about subjects with which they are emotionally (or financially in the case of companies) connected. You ask how the COI banner can be removed; I'm afraid that it will have to stay until another editor has rewritten the article in the form of a factual biography, and sourced it to published works of writers who are not closely connected to him. I suggest that you enlist the help of editors who are familiar with economics topics by posting a note on WT:WikiProject Economics.—Anne Delong (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

PS- It seems that while I was writing this two editors have started improving the article already.... —Anne Delong (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I took your advice and posted a request for contributions at WT:WikiProject Economics. I like the book review link you suggested above (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Southern-Economic-Journal/17021382.html), but I'll have to wait for someone else to add it. Do you think it should be quoted from directly or listed just as a footnote? By the way, I don't understand about the different types of references. How do "References", "Bibliography", "External Links", "Suggested Reading", and "Footnotes" differ? I see them all used in Wikipedia.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Great questions, Mitzi.humphrey. Quotations should be kept to a minimum on Wikipedia. In most cases an editor should summarize in their own words what the source says. Occasionally someone has said something iconic, so that their exact words are widely discussed, (such as MacArthur's "I shall return") and should be quoted.

"References" is a general term, and the text of citations appears in that section, as well as general references which could be used as citations but haven't been yet.
"Bibliography" refers to the list of books, articles, etc., written or edited by the subject - if the person is a very prolific author, this is often "Selected bibliography" instead. (These are not references, but may be in the article because they are interesting information).
"External links" is a section at the bottom of the article where a few relevant web links can be added - maybe the subject's web site, or an organization for which he's known, etc.
"Footnotes" is occasionally used instead of the word "References" if the citations includes explanatory notes as well as source citations. I personally avoid these; they make the article hard to read and most important terms that need explaining should be wikilinks to another article instead.
"Suggested Reading" - This would have a list of books that the creator of the page thinks the reader would find interesting, but this is problematic, since Wikipedia can't promote anything, and I would avoid including that section, to avoid arguments about what should be in it.
You didn't mention "See Also", a section which has a list of other Wikipedia articles which are closely related, but aren't already linked in the article. For example, and article about "Pepperone pizza" might list "Mushroom pizza" (okay, silly example, but you get the idea). I hope this is clear. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

3 strikes an out???

So, I am still struggling to understand the ins & outs of being a Wiki user/ contributor. One might say I already have 2 strikes! Initially I tried editing some articles relevant to recent discoveries made at our research institute. While I did not believe there to be a conflict of interest, I now understand from Wiki's viewpoint there was, and have since learned how to go about suggesting these kinds of edits.

Then, I created my user page. I had assumed a user page was not visible to the world at large, but apparently it is. It too was deleted, allegedly because my biographical information was considered "self-promotion". I was not attempting to promote anything, simply to provide other Wiki folks with user pages an opportunity to reach out to me based upon my qualifications, for the potential of working together on articles of interest.

So this process has taught me that Wiki is hyper-sensitive to self-promoters, spammers & profiteers. In hindsight I can understand you probably encounter a lot of that- hence the sensitivity.

I'd like to create another user page... however I am assuming a 3rd strike, as it were, would be an out- as in banned from Wiki. Ergo, how does one create a user page without providing any content about themselves while attracting those with similar interests???

Thanks

David Sabaj-Stahl (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, David Sabaj-Stahl. To date, your mis-steps have been minor and common among new editors. I do not believe that you are at any immediate risk of being blocked, as long as you strive to comply with our policies and guidelines going forward. Your user page is visible to anyone who is interested in you. Since you use what is presumably your real name, it will be visible in Google searches as well. The purpose of a Wikipedia user page is to present yourself to other editors as a Wikipedia editor. Some basic biographical information is fine, to indicate your background and areas of interest, but not to promote your outside interests in any way. Editors often list articles they have written or worked on. Adding a quote or two reflecting an editor's personal philosophy is common. Many editors mention how long they have been editing or how many edits they have made. Full details can be found at WP:User pages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)