Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 407

Archive 400

←

Archive 405

Archive 406

Archive 407

Archive 408

Archive 409

Archive 410

Am new editor, have seen note that my article has close paraphrasing, but no info/detail is included. How to resolve?

I have just posted my first article on Wikipedia. The article was an original piece of work, with many references added. None of the article was cut and pasted or copied from elsewhere. However, there is now a banner that says the article contains "close paraphrasing". I have no idea which section of the article is being referred to, but I definitely have not "closely paraphrased" anything ... how do I clear this issue up and remove the banner? Thanks. WikiForester (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Continuous Cover Forestry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, WikiForester, and welcome to the Teahouse. The tag was added by Adam9007. You can leave a message for that editor on User talk:Adam9007, or perhaps he or she will see this thread and respond here as to what sections of the article included close paraphrasing of what sources or works. The article history shows what user made which changes, and can often be used to reach out to the editor who made a change, asking for reasons. It is good practice in such a case to leave a comment on the article talk page with more detail than a tag can provide, to aid editors who wish to fix issues raised in a tag. I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 20:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiForester, the copyvio detection tool finds significant overlap with http://www.ccfg.org.uk and with https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260031518_Continuous_cover_forestry_in_Britain_challenges_and_opportunities. You might want to check for similar phrases and sentence structures with those sites. DES ^(talk) 20:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

As per DESiegel, you can use the copyvio detection tool to see where the similarities are with which web pages. Adam9007 (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Adam9007, when you tag an article and an editor then asks why, it would be helpful to indicate what sort of problems you actually found. This is especially true with a comparatively new editor, as per WP:BITE. For the matter of that, it would really be better practice in a case like this for you to have proactively left a note on Talk:Continuous Cover Forestry describing the issues you found in more detail than a tag supports. I do this frequently. Moreover, while the copyvio detection tool is excellent at detecting actual copying, it is not as good at finding close paraphrasing, and my use of it was merely a guess at what you might have found. Please tell us at least what works you found paraphrasing of that induced you to place the tag. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 21:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this, but I am the co-author of the paper you quote, and do not feel there is an issue with the close paraphrasing. I wrote the article in my own style and added all the references I thought necessary. There is no copyright issue and there is no issue with the underlying ideas. So, I really do not feel that "close paraphrasing" applies. Grateful for any further clarification or preferably remove of the tag for "close paraphrasing". Thanks for your help. WikiForester (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiForester, do understand that even if you were the sole author of the paper, given that it had been previously published, Wikipedia will treat it as copyrighted and will not allow it to be copied from or closely paraphrased unless it is freely released. See Donating Copyrighted Material for details on how to do that. I have often speedy-deleted direct copies of other sites even though the posting editor says that s/he runs the site and wrote the content. For one thing we need to verify that, and for another we need a clear release. DES ^(talk) 00:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I have addressed more of the concerns raised by editors, thanks for careful review, but now want to remove the messages and headers. For example, there is no longer close paraphrasing, no longer a lack of links to other wiki pages and also there are additional references in all the locations suggested by the editors. A wide range of sources all freely available as downloads have been carefully selected. There remains the issue of linking from other websites ... but that is a job I will have to do another time. Thanks for helping to now clean up the page and remove the notices WikiForester (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @WikiForester: I had a look and it seems as if you dealt with the close paraphrasing issue nicely (at least the tool is happy now). I've also removed the COI tag as that is only appropriate if the topic is being discussed in a biased way, which I can't see in the article. That leaves the lack of wikilinks to and from other articles, but that shouldn't be too hard address with a bit of casting around. Once that is done, you can remove the respective tags from the article yourself (it's the first four lines). Cheers -- Elmidae (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please review the page NEXA

Dear editors, I request you all to visit my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexa and help me in making it more efficient. I have taken care of all the parameters for making this page. I will appreciate the helps of any kind. Thank you Edito Freak (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Edito Freak: I don't believe that you took into account the policies of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERT as parameters that must be followed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@TRPoD, I will take into due consideration the points you raised. I am working on them and I believe to improve myself and my contributions.

Thank You Edito Freak (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Edito Freak: you will need to remove pretty much everything : "premium" , "leading" , claims of "new" "first" "innovative" "only" . everything only supported by Press releases. etc etc.

any other analysis must be attributed to the person making the analysis, and those analysts must be noted professionals from reliably published sources -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree with TRPoD regarding judicious use of the term "premium" in the article NEXA; per multiple reliable sources cited, that seems to be a term for a class of automobiles, apparently analagous to the "luxury" automobile classification used in the United States. (I'm afraid I am not familiar with terms used for different classes of vehicles in other English-speaking markets.) Thus "premium" is here descriptive rather than evaluative, and does not in itself violate NPOV. The article as a whole does still contain other promotional language which needs to be removed or rewritten, even though both Edito Freak (who created the article) and I have removed some. However, on the whole, with sufficient references to reliable sources, substantial coverage by same, and a base of facts beneath the veneer of promotional puffery, the article seems to be shaping up well. It may well be that the topic seems like it shouldn't meet Wikipedia's notability standard, but the sources cited indicate that it does. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 12:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

we wouldnt use the descriptor "luxury" for US car without specifically attributing it to reliable sources either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

George Bell (bishop)#Child abuse allegations: 1. Questionable editing practices, 2. POV

Hello. George Bell (1883-1958) rightly enjoys a high standing for his courageous stance against area bombing during the 2nd World War, and later against expulsions of ethnic Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia. But as of this month it would seem that he was also a child abuser. I have two concerns about coverage of this emerging story on Wikipedia.

1. On two occasions (2015-09-08 and 2015-10-26) an IP has made an unencyclopedic edit and then undone it themselves a minute later. These IPs seem to have a reason for doing this, but it's not clear to me. Is this acceptable behaviour? If not, does something need to be done about it?

2. I'm considering placing a POV flag for the first time, as I think the current version casts more doubts on the allegations than can be justified by the sources. Should I just be bold and do this, or should I talk it through with someone first? GroupCohomologist (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, GroupCohomologist.

1. I don't know what the IP's reason for doing what you describe could have been, unless it was something like a kid playing around on mom's or dad's computer and making unencyclopedic edits, which the parent then reverted.

2. If I was you I'd just be bold and do it. Accusing someone (even posthumously) of being a child abuser, or anything else along that line, without having reliable sources to back it up is slander. He may have been a child abuser and he may not have, but until we have more sources we can't know. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Given that high quality sources including The Guardian and the BBC are reporting that compensation has been paid to the victim, and that a police investigation stated that Bell would be arrested if he was still alive, and that the Church of England has issued a formal apology for Bell's conduct, I think that the sourcing is very strong, White Arabian mare. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that GroupCohomologist was saying that we were not stressing the accusations strongly enough, that we were saying less thqan the sources warrant, Cullen328. By the way, White Arabian mare in US (and I believe UK) law, it is not possible to slander or libel a dead person, as I understand it. DES ^(talk) 00:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

In those cases, the accusations need to be stressed more strongly. I'm going to say that in general, though, I don't really like cleanup tagging and almost never use it; to me it's easier just to fix the problem. Most of the time it seems like the tags just languish indefinitely and don't get removed even if the issue is cleared up. :( White Arabian mare (Neigh) 02:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Thank you very much to White Arabian mare, Cullen328 and DESiegel for taking time to comment. I had "brevity is the sould of wit" drummed into me as a child; but unfortunately this time I was so concise that my concerns were unclear at first. Sorry about that.

May I trouble you with some more detail on my first concern? The story officially broke on 2015-10-22, but earlier on 2015-09-08 a MAC address pre-announced the story: factually accurate, but phrased in an unencyclopedic way and of course unsourced. Two minutes later they removed their own contribution. Then on 2015-10-26 an IP address added a (potentially libellous) PA on the victim, deleting their own contribution one minute later. Of course, the AGF explanation would be that both editors quickly realised that they had made an honest mistake. But the bad faith explanation would be that this is a neat way to get your message out to those watching the page, who can't easily answer back. Is this legitimate behaviour, or is it gaming the system? GroupCohomologist (talk) 07:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

GroupCohomologist there is no way to know what the IP editor's motive was, nor is there much of anything we could do about it even if we thought the motive was to "game the system". However, such an almost instantly self-reverted post isn't a very effective way to "get the word out" as only those who read the article history will ever see it (which usually means only those who edit, many of whom will know better than to accept unsourced info anyway), and Google and other search engines are very unlikely to pick it up. And anyone watching the page could post on the talk page about the edit, with a link to the diff, if it seemed worth responding to. One could also post on the IP's talk page. DES ^(talk) 13:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

School block

Materaialscientist blocks some IP vandals as school block. Someone posts on IP talk page,"WHOIS" message, that the IP belongs to school. Wikipedia must have a bot which will automatically tag this WHOIS school IPs. The Avengers (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, The Avengers, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not automatically block all school IP Addresses, only ones that have a significant history of vandalism or abuse. In general, blocking requires some judgement, so it is not normally done by a bot. DES ^(talk) 15:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that The Avengers was asking for them to be blocked, but for a bot to automatically add the message on the talk pages of school IPs. - Arjayay (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that will help us identify User IPs from school/college IPs.--The Avengers (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear what to me what User:The Avengers is requesting be done by a bot, or whether it can be done by a bot. Interpreting a WHOIS is normally done by a human, and some of the interfaces to WHOIS use a CAPTCHA to block their use by bots. Not all school blocks are identified as school blocks. It appears that adding a school block identification to an IP address is done after there has been administrator attention. Is there a reason that we need to identify school IP addresses if they aren't being used for vandalism? The Avengers refers to user IPs as opposed to school IPs. Do they mean IPs that are assigned to ISPs for dynamic assignment to users? It isn't clear what is being requested, or whether it is a task that can easily be done by a bot, or why a bot is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:TAFI -->Comedy horror

I am posting here on behalf of the Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement Wikiproject, calling out to any newbies who would like some genuine editing experience under the guidance of some experienced editors. This collaboration sees a group of editors come together to work on improving one article over a week, and is a fantastic opportunity for any Wikipedian. The current TAFI article is comedy horror.--Coin945 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Follow up to "Blacklist/blocked-link error in error?" question yesterday

Hi PrimeHunter and JohnBlackburne Thanks for helping me investigate. I have had to post a new question here because I was stopped from "editing" / adding a reply to your responses again with the Blacklist/blocked-link error. The last page I tried to edit was Cravath, Swaine & Moore just to delete "Swaine2012" in order to fix the cite error which I think you will see there presently. It is not always the same page but I don't recall the other pages in this moment. I don't believe I have tried to add templates (not sure I know how). I will meanwhile check for possible malicious code on my machine. Thanks! remando (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I just had a look and had no problems fixing it by changing the names of both definitions so they were distinct. There is probably a more elegant way to do it, as the refs are almost identical differing only by a page number, but it fixed the error. I did not encounter any problems such as you described. I am just an autoregistered editor like you so you should have been able to make the same or a similar edit.

To be more particular over what you might check it could be a rogue browser extension or plugin. They are used to do things like ad-blocking but can do almost anything including things you don’t want. They operate within the browser which might explain why you are seeing a problem just editing. You might also try using another browser to see if it makes a difference.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The template {{Rp}} can be used, to give a page number after the reference. It would look like this.¹ It's far from ideal but it is one solution. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC).

Thank you JohnBlackburne and Rich for helping with my troubleshooting! I am on different machine this afternoon to see if it makes a difference. I was just blocked again from editing in this space a few minutes ago using the same browser as before (Chrome) but now I am trying with a new browser, so fingers crossed you will be able to see this message from me. remando (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC) It worked! Thanks again! remando (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC) P.S. for anyone else with this issue, I removed all Chrome extensions and can successfully edit via Chrome now. remando (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

how to delelete history on ios app

I want to remove any Wikipedia footprints from my iPhone ios7, so that when I loan the phone someone won't be able to see what I've been up to. So far, the only thing I can think of is uninstalling the app, and then reinstalling. Is there another, "built-in" way to do this? More generally, is there a tutorial or "odds and ends" page? Thanks!184.66.104.13 (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. The Teahouse is for asking questions and getting answers about editing Wikipedia. Your question seems to be about how to remove or hide your usage history from an Apple device. I think that the experts in Cupertino who work for Apple are better able to answer your question than we are. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an iPhone but I think the question is not about the builtin browser by Apple but about the Wikipedia Mobile app by Wikimedia Foundation, linked on iPhone at Help:Mobile access#Official apps. If you don't get an answer here then you can try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit notice

Resolved

I recently found out how to use Edit notices, but I could not add one to my talk page. When I tried to create page User_talk:Imfrankliu/Editnotice, it says that it is supposed to be the talk page of "Imfrankliu/Editnotice". How can I add an Edit notice to my talk page? Frank (User Page) (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Imfrankliu. Edit notices are created by a template placed in the wikicode at the top of the page in question, not on another page. Please read Wikipedia:Editnotice where the technical details are explained. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No Cullen328, User_talk:Imfrankliu/Editnotice is correct. I see it has been created now. What was the exact message you got there about "Imfrankliu/Editnotice"? PrimeHunter (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Frank, it looks like you figured it out: The Edit notice you created before posting above was User:Imfrankliu/Editnotice not User talk:Imfrankliu/Editnotice. So the message you received was to alert you of that wrongunexpected filename. —teb728 t c 04:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, PrimeHunter TEB728. I decided to create User_talk:Imfrankliu/Editnotice anyway, and it seemed to work. Thanks! Frank (User Page) (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Eugenio B. Bito-onon Jr. turned for for lack of notability

This article was turned down by the reviewer for lack of notability. I tried asking the reviewer for clarification, but haven't gotten a reply. I reviewed the general notability and notability guidelines for politicians, and I believe that the person in question does qualify. Bito-onon played an important role in the establishment of the 1st and only permanent Filipino civilian settlement in the highly disputed Spratly Islands. He's been interviewed multiple times by international media. He's made a tour of the US, giving talks, interviews and meeting several US officials along the way (How many mayors from the Philippines do that? This information isn't very encyclopedic so I haven't added too much info: I would basically have to find each specific mention of an US official from pics, etc, and add that to support the claim about meeting with multiple US officials, such as this photo caption "PENTAGON MEETING. Kalayaan Mayor Eugenio Bito-onon (3rd from left) meets with Dennis McGinn (4th), the US Navy's assistant secretary for energy, installations, and environment, accompanied by members of the US Pinoys for Good Governance on September 28, 2015.") Photo courtesy of Eric Lachica/USPGG) I'm not sure if this is the proper forum to ask, but I'd like to get more feedback from others on whether this person is notable. Thanks!Fraenir (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Fraenir and welcome to the Teahouse. Being the mayor of a fairly small community may not pass the notability guideline for politicians. However, it looks to me as if this draft passes the General notability guideline. I don't have time for a full review at the moment, but I will do one soon. However there are a few points I would like you to clean up.

1. You have shortened footnotes pointing to "Hayton" and "Kaplan" but these aren't linking properly. Please see WP:SFN and Help:Shortened footnotes for how to format these so that the notes link to the actual refs. I have made an edit and I think it fixes this, but please double check. (When i started this comment I thought the sources weren't listed, I didn't look at the "Further Reading" section.)
2. Many of the online sources have only partial metadata. Please list the work in which the article was published, the author (if known) and the publication date or year (if known), and the page number for sources in print or PDF format or any format where a page number is relevant.

If the above is done I will probably approve this when I have a chance to review fully. Perhaps SwisterTwister. the experienced editor who declined the draft last week, would care to comment. DES ^(talk) 15:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. I really appreciate it!

1. I understand that most small community leaders will not qualify for notability guideline for politicians; however, if I'm not mistaken, he should still pass #2 (Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage). and #3 (Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".)? Are all 3 points required to pass notability guideline for politicians? I highly doubt this, as it appears point #2 was created specifically to deal with cases such as Bito-onon. I'm just asking these questions because I want to understand these policies a bit better.
2. I'll try to make those fixes to the best of my ability. If you have any other concerns about the presentation or content of the article, please let me know. Fraenir (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You are quite correct, Fraenir, passing any one of the specific criteria, or passing the WP:GNG (which is basically point 3) is enough, there is no need to pass all of them, This is generally true with all the subject-specific notability criteria, passing any point from any of them, or the GNG, is normally enough. DES ^(talk) 16:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, so what is required to pass #2 (Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage)? Does major here mean 1. "A local political figure of an important place", 2. "A local political figure of high standing" or 3. "A local political figure with importance beyond the office"? #2 doesn't make sense, and #1 almost means that notability lies with the office and not the person, so #3 should be the most reasonable interpretation? Fraenir (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Fraenir. In my opinion, WP:POLITICIAN is the wrong tool for evaluating the notability of this particular person. The New York Times does not normally write several times about and interview the mayors of tiny villages. The same is true of other worldwide media organizations. He is notable because he is the senior Philippine government official on the actual front lines of the Territorial disputes in the South China Sea. This is an issue of great importance and potential danger in international relations, and in my opinion, Wikipedia ought to have a biography of this person. I also invite SwisterTwister to comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

I have accepted the draft. DES ^(talk) 11:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

RMOS Consultancy profile creation in wikipedia ?

Hi why i am not able to create a profile for my firm in wikipedia ? my account got suspended everytime i try to do so / plz help!

thanks in advance! RMOS Consultancy RMOS Consultancy (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of company profiles. If your company is sufficiently notable for the encyclopedia to need an article about it, then someone else will write one in due course. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears that you have not read the replies to your various previous questions on the same subject: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 396#How to create a talk page for RMOS Consultancy ?, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 398#Regarding RMOS Consultancy, and Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 September 28#How to edit a page for RMOS Consultancy ?, nor have you read the messages on your user talk page at User talk:Rajnitsharma. Please don't ask again until you have read the previous replies and taken note of the advice which you have been given. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Lifting a redirect in order to create a new page under the redirect term

Hi! New here, and trying to rely on myself by reading through all the tips, rules and regulations but there is something that I can't work out. It would be great if someone could point me in the right direction for lifting a redirect from [Ocean Cleanup] to the Great Pacific garbage patch. There are separate German -> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ocean_Cleanup and Dutch https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ocean_Cleanup wiki pages for this organization, but on the English wikipedia these search terms direct to the Great Pacific garbage patch. Those are clearly related but not the same. On top of that some statements on research and organizations seem a bit messy and confusing on the GPGP page. I would love to start sorting out the GPGP page and contributing to a separate English page about The Ocean Cleanup. To start working on The Ocean Cleanup page, the redirect needs to be lifted. I have read through [redirect page] but it remains unclear to me what to do when a redirect needs to be lifted in order to create a separate article for the redirect term. Where can I best put my request for lift on the redirect without deleting the redirect term? Thanks a lot! Merelsara (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Merelsara, welcome to the Teahouse. You read the wrong section. See Wikipedia:Redirect#How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article. Click The Ocean Cleanup and then "(Redirected from The Ocean Cleanup)". Note however that articles by new users are often deleted for not meeting our requirements. You could try Wikipedia:Articles for creation instead to get a review with feedback and a chance to improve the article if it's not accepted the first time. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter, thank you for your swift response and warm welcome! I will dive into the right page and first apply the article for feedback.

Merelsara (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Merelsara. Prophylactically, based on what it seems you may be doing, please note our copyright attribution requirements for when you are copying content from one English Wikipedia article to another location, and when translating from a foreign language Wikipedia article into English. Both simply require an appropriate edit summary in which you state what you are doing, and provide a link to the source you are copying/translating from.

For copying from an internal page to another internal page, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, and specifically its subsection at the shortcut WP:PATT.

For translating, please see Wikipedia:Translation, and specifically its subsection Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate.

Both provide model edit summaries for your to tailor for your purposes. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, thank you for your guidance, I will keep your comments in mind. Kind regards, Merelsara (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

how can i remove my article to my sandbox?

i am concerned that my article may contain some inaccuracies and need to move it to my sandbox, how can i do this? (Greaser25 (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Greaser25. Which article are you referring to? Is it Yellow Jackets Motorcycle Club? If so, I don't know if you can move it from mainspace to sandbox space; the best thing to do is just to edit it as it is and fix the inaccuracies. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 16:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

How to update the references?

Host AmaryllisGardener brought me here. I relatively new to editing at Wikipedia. So I wanted to ask, how do i update the references in a page? Winterysteppe (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Winterysteppe: and welcome to the Teahouse!

The help page WP:REFB give a lot of information about the technical side. The reference information is placed in the body of the article next to the content it verifies and the magic of Wiki displays that information as footnotes at the bottom of the page. The help page give templates that help identify the information needed and make a pretty display, but they are not absolutely mandatory as long as the appropriate information is provided to accurately identify and credit the source.

The process side is done by finding reliably published sources with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight, like published journals, standard publication books, or major newspapers. Some places to start looking for acceptable sources if you don't have access to major collections through your library are books.google.com, news.google.com and scholar.google.com . They won't find all acceptable sources and not all hits from there will be acceptable but its a far greater percentage than just regular google search. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

References

How do i fill out copyright for a wall of text from my own blog?

I have a blog which i have posted a summary of a book a read. I posted it on there and i was told i needed a copyright form something filled out. What is going on with this? Winterysteppe (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Winterysteppe, there are two separate parts to this question:

• How can I make the text I written OK to use on Wikipedia? and
• How can I make sure that my text gets used?

I'll answer the second one first: sorry, but you can't. There's no guarantee that any content you contribute or donate to Wikipedia will be used. If the text in question is this, my guess is that the chances of it being used even in part are very slim indeed. You could perhaps try asking about that at Talk:The Lords of Vaumartin.

If you want to go ahead and make the text available anyway, the easiest way is to put a suitable copyleft notice such as CC-BY-SA 3.0 on your blog page, and mention on the talk page of the article that you have done so. Otherwise you can follow the instructions at WP:DCM and email permission; there is sometimes a backlog dealing with those emails, so that process may not be quick.

Why do we insist on this being done in one of these ways, rather than just taking your word for it? It is just possible to imagine a situation where someone might lie about being the author of a text; if we took that person's word and accepted the content, we would be infringing the intellectual rights of the real author. So we play safe. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Some Words of Wisdom from the New Yorker: On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Removing info box after review process

Dear Wikipedia,

I want to close review process of the page: E-Infrastructures Reflection Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Infrastructures_Reflection_Group

We fulfill all reviewer requests many months ago and we want to remove info box "This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page."

I tried to contact with reviewers via talk page but without success.

I really appreciate your help.

Regards, Marcin Lawenda e-IRG http://e-irg.eu/ Mlawenda (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Marcin, and welcome to the teahouse. The current version of the article E-Infrastructures Reflection Group has not been reviewed (A previous version was, and was then deleted as a copyright violation. A user did remove the "unreviewed" tag in August 2014, but the editor in question has since been blocked for misuse of Wikipedia, so that "review" was not necessarily meaningful.

The tags at the top of the article are called maintenance tags, and may be added or removed by any editor as they think appropriate. Looking at them, I see that the "orphan" tag was no longer appropriate, as there are now three articles which link to this one, and I have removed it. The other three are certainly still appropriate and should not be removed.

Please read the information which has been placed near the top of your user talk page. Wikipedia has almost no interest in what eIRG wants to say about itself: an article should be based almost 100% on what others, unconnected with the subject, have published about it in reliable places. Publications of the EC are reliable, no doubt, but they are not unconnected with one of its groups. That is what the tags mean.

Your wording suggests to me that you are yourself connected with the Group: if so, you need to read Conflict of interest to discover why you are discouraged from editing this article. Furthermore, if you are being paid to edit it (including as part of employment), you must declare this - see WP:PAID for more information.

What needs to happen to this article is that somebody needs to find some substantial independent published information about the Group, in sources such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers. If such sources cannot be found, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article about the group at present: we say that the Group is not notable (in Wikipedia's special sense of the word). If those sources exist, then the article can be written; but every single piece of information in it should be individually cited to a reliable published source - and nearly all of them to independent sources. See referencing for beginners.

I'm sorry if this sounds unwelcoming: we try to make the Teahouse a welcoming place. But I suspect that you have been given a job by the Group which it is very very difficult for you to achieve - apologies if I am making wrong assumptions. In any case, please read, carefully, the various guidelines that have been linked on your user talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Hi, Mlawenda! It's hard to know where to start – there are a lot of problems here:

• First, since you are associated with the group, you have a conflict of interest, and should not edit that page directly; you are always welcome to make suggestions on the talk page, Talk:E-Infrastructures Reflection Group.
• Second, if by any chance you are employed by the group, please note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact.
• The article as it stands has little or nothing to demonstrate the notability of the group. You'll need to show that it has received in-depth coverage in several independent reliable sources; you can list these on the talk page.
• Most of what it says at present is uncited: in general, the text should contain only what is verifiable from those same reliable sources; if it isn't verifiable, it should be removed.
• The article as it stands is at imminent risk of deletion; I suggest that you ask the kind Teahouse editors to move it into draft space (i.e., to Draft:E-Infrastructures Reflection Group), to give time for some improvements to be made.

Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Bukarester FC

Can someone help me with this German Team ? Draft:Bukarester FC ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Thanks

Hi Alexiulian25, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place to learn about editing Wikipedia rather than a place to request help with draft articles, although some volunteers here may be willing to respond to the latter. May I suggest asking for help at somewhere like WikiProject Football? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

wikitable IPA no longer working?

Got logged out this morning, and noticed that setting a table to class "wikitable IPA" no longer forces the contents to display in a font that supports the IPA. Is it broken, or has something changed? Thanks — kwami (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Kwamikagami hello and welcome to The Teahouse. If no one here answers the question, WP:VPT is the usual place to report problems such as this.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll move the discussion there. — kwami (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Tom Powers Article Need someone to help

Are there people available to work with me to help me organize and write an article pertaining to a musician who has claim to fame? I have started the page but am totally overwhelmed by the requirements to have an article or piece created and approved. I have the newspaper articles and proof of the significant accomplishments. But need someone to help me put it together... I am not asking for the staff to do this but maybe someone who has completed an article and can walk me thru it and advise me. Joannpowers (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's the article Joannpowers wants help with: Tom Powers. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Looks like it's actually Draft:Tom Powers - Detroit - Musician Extraordinaire, White Arabian mare (The article you linked to seems to be about a different person named Tom Powers, a fairly common name.)

Regardless, Joannpowers, I'd be happy to help you first determine whether the Tom Powers you want to write about is eligible to have a Wikipedia article about him — in short, he is eligible only if there has been substantial coverage of him, in multiple sources independent of him (i.e. not press releases or an autobiography), and those sources are what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. All that taken together is what Wikipedia calls our notability standard, but note that Wikipedia's definition has little to do with general usage of the word notable. If we figure out that the Tom Powers you want to write about meets the notability standard, then I'll be happy to help you get your draft into shape too, since working with new editors on drafts (even editors with a conflict of interest, something you may have) is one of my hobbies here at Wikipedia. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I did a little bit of work on the draft, though. The title will probably have to be changed to something like "Tom Powers (musician)" though, because "extraordinaire" is a little bit too over the top. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 23:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Joannpowers, I was sorry to learn that Tom Powers has died. I have also just learned (without wanting to) that you may have a close personal connection to him. In that case it would almost certainly be better if you did not try to write an article about him here – one of our requirements is that our articles must be neutral in tone, and it's our collective experience that it is very difficult for people with a close connection to the topic to maintain that sort of neutrality. I see that GrammarFascist has offered to help you determine whether Mr Powers meets our quite stringent notability requirements. If you find that he does, I think that asking for an article at Wikipedia:Requested articles may be the best way forward – unless someone else is prepared to write the draft for you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hispano and Hispanos

We have an article titled Hispano and another one titled Hispanos, which is the ordinary plural of Hispano. They are on different though related topics, and they don't even cross-refer for disambiguation. IMHO that's a mess.

In fact, there's a lot more mess than that; see Talk:Hispanos § NOT a term or ethnic group. But the title issue is my main reason for bringing the topic here. Can anyone advise or help on it? Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Thnidu: I'm seeing Hispano redirecting to an article titled Nuevomexicano, which I believe is quite different than Hispanos. I'd have to take a closer look to see about cross-referencing, but at first glance they appear to be quite separate topics. 2macia22 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@2macia22: Though I haven't looked up the reference in the explanatory footnote [Cobos, Rubén (2003) "Introduction" A Dictionary of New Mexico & Southern Colorado Spanish (2nd ed.) Museum of New Mexico Press, Santa Fe, N.M., p. ix, ISBN 0-89013-452-9], I wouldn't be at all surprised if different groups of Hispanic people were called "Hispanos" in their respective areas. Perhaps that mention merely needs rewording. --Thnidu (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirect mistake

Hi,

I mistakenly renamed the original 'What is an article?' entry with Orient Planet PR and Marketing Communications. My original goal was to publish this page from my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orient_Planet_PR_and_Marketing_Communications.

Now when I search for 'Orient Planet PR and Marketing Communications' the link will automatically direct me to 'What is an article?' page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_an_article%3F). How can I remove Orient Planet PR and Marketing Communications from this page? Tlagura (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Tlagura, welcome to the Teahouse. The problem you're seeing is, as you rightly suggest, related to this:

   09:09, 29 October 2015 JohnCD (talk | contribs) deleted page Orient Planet PR and Marketing Communications (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)
   07:02, 29 October 2015 Tlagura (talk | contribs) moved page Orient Planet PR and Marketing Communications to What is an article? (revert)

User:JohnCD has already partly fixed this, but I think we may still have a problem in that What is an article? is now a mainspace article whereas it should be at Wikipedia:What is an article? only. Or so I think. John, could you or another admin address this please?

 Fixed JohnCD (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Tlagura, once this is all fixed, Google or whatever search engine you're using, will eventually... perhaps in a few days or hours... catch up with reality and then you will no longer see the anomalous results. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the OP's article to Draft:Orient Planet PR and Marketing Communications and advised them that it needs better referencing for notability. JohnCD (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

ZoSia Karbowiak - still a question on linking

I have tried to use your samples to edit this but can't get the reference to show up properly and don't understand what help link is telling me. could you take a look. I have the link in the refs but can't get the title there...."ZoSia Karbowiak - 20 Years of Music" thanks always so much for your help here, mary Paulhus15 (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Paulhus15. I think these edits will have done the trick. Note how I used {{cite web}} (matching other refs in the article. DES ^(talk) 13:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

What do I do to fix my references for ZoSia Karbowiak

I apparently used some obsolete cite refs but unclear how to fix them or what the help page is telling me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zosia_Karbowiak . could you advise me what to do to correct this. thanks! Paulhus15 (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Each parameter of a citation template is discrete. The |url= parameter takes just the URL, not the URL followed by the publisher or title. Any field you are populating gets its own information entered. So, for example, it's not (problem underlined):

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://esckaz.com/2010/pol.htm Eurovision 2010|title=Eurovision 2010|accessdate=25 July 2015}}</ref>

It would be something like:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://esckaz.com/2010/pol.htm|title=Poland at Eurovision Song Content|publisher=Esckaz.com|accessdate=25 July 2015}}</ref>

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Paulhus15: (edit conflict)it's a bit obscure this but there is a simple way of linking to web pages and a full one using citation templates and mixing them generates a warning which is probably what you saw. The simple method is [http://www.example.com A link to example.com] with the url and title separated by a space which results in A link to example.com. The use of the citation template {{cite web}} requires each parameter to be labelled so {{cite web |url=http://www.example.com |title=A link to example.com}} (other parameters omitted) which gives "A link to example.com"..

You had used the cite web template but left the text of the title in the url parameter like this {{cite web |url=http://www.example.com A link to example.com |title=A link to example.com}} which is why a warning was generated that the url was incorrectly formatted. I've fixed these in the article on Zosia Karbowiak. Nthep (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

thank you so much for correcting them. didn't read the end of your comment...fantastic!!!! Paulhus15 (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Paulhus15, cite web also allows you to specify the author, either as author= or separated into first= and last= as I prefer. It lets you specify the publication date with date= too. And the name of the publication cited should be in work=, leaving title= for the title of the actual article or page or other piece. As many of these as are available (many sources don't list all of them) should be included if possible. See the section above too. DES ^(talk) 13:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

how to replace the logo in the information box

We have created a new logo for our organisation. I wish to replace the former logo in the information box on our wikipedia page. When I click on the page information, it is mentioned that I cannot overwrite the photo file. How can I get the new logo on our page? Ingevh (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless and until you make the required declaration that you are editing on behalf of your employer, you should not be editing at all. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which has been pointed out to you previously. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ingevh: It looks to me like it was taken care of earlier today. If my assumption is mistaken let me know and I'll try to help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Tone of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Give me a hand?

I would like some help on this situation. This article is absolutely terrifying.

• Read my edit summaries and check the changes I made
• Check my message in the talk page.
• Still in the talk page, notice that the tone and neutrality of the article have been questioned in the past a significant amount of times.

I would like someone to help me out to fix tone and bias problems. Outedexits (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Outedexits, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've taken a look at the article, and I would hardly qualify it as "terrifying"; hyperbole isn't going to win anyone over to your point of view. That said, there are some issues with tone in the article itself, I agree, and the POV tag seems appropriate. It's a shame that the conversation going on in the Talk page doesn't have even as level a tone as the article currently, though I suppose that may be inevitable. In any case, the Talk page is the proper place for you to discuss the article's tone, and once consensus is achieved there, then edits to alter the article's tone can be made. I will keep an eye on the article and discussion and contribute as it seems appropriate. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 11:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

while not "terrifying", it is pretty far up on the terrible scale: POV pushing, WP:OR/SYN, poor sources etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: Thanks a lot for your attention. Yes, I know the proper place to discuss is the talk page itself but I decided to bring the attention of more people to the issue. Anyway, as long as the POV tag really will and should be there, that's good enough for now. Cheers, Outedexits (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The original poster (OP) has also filed a request at the dispute resolution noticeboard, which is an appropriate place for a content dispute. The OP apparently accidentally filed it as a closed case, but I have set its status to new, so that it can be accepted by another volunteer moderator. I suggest that any further discussion of the article can be at DRN. Please be civil and concise. Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

How can I add a photo to the article I created?

I have created an article - Ken_Baxter_(businessman) and am wondering how I can add a photo to it. My efforts so far have been unsuccessful. Jennifer Acevedo Jenniferacevedo (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Jenniferacevedo You'll need to upload the picture first. However please make sure the picture either a.) has no copyright on it or b.) has been released as CC-BY-SA so that wikipedia can use it.

Simply put, if the photo exists on another website, Wikipedia would consider it copyrighted except it the website carried a notice stating the image was CC-BY-SA. Once you have that picture and you've uploaded it into Wikipedia, simple refer to it like so [[File:Myimage.jpg]] , substituting Myimage.jpg for the actual file name. Hope that helps you out. KoshVorlon 17:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon Thank you, that is very helpful! Jenniferacevedo (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Jenniferacevedo I see that you have already uploaded a suitable photo: File:Ken Baxter in his PMA Realty office - Las Vegas, Nevada.jpg, so you can add that to the article. One of the ways to do that is to add in infobox, which will have a place for an image. See WP:IBX generally. {{infobox person}} is probably a good one to use.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)