Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 509

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 505

←

Archive 507

→

How can I get rid of this message on Expert360 wiki page?

Hey Wiki team,

Been trying for a while to get other people to contribute to this article so that I can get rid of this message?

Is there a simple way to fix?

"A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (March 2016)"

Gabem274 (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gabem274. The first thing that you must do is to make the mandatory paid editing disclosure. Read that link and comply before editing any more. The tag says that the article is an orphan, and that is true, since no other articles link to this one. So, that one must stay until incoming links from other articles are created. The "major contributor" tag is also correct since it seems pretty clear that this article has not been extensively edited by people unaffiliated with the company. Plus, the company's own website is used several times as a reference for various business claims, which is improper. You are making various suggestions on the talk page, but they are promotional and/or vague. Any such suggestions should be specific, rigorously neutral, and properly referenced to independent, reliable sources. To be frank, volunteer editors tend to be unenthusiastic about editing promotional articles about relatively new businesses. Volunteers edit articles that interest them, which raises the question about why uninvolved editors would find an article about this business interesting. But perhaps someone might. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Cullen328, I believe the editor is asking when they can remove {{COI}}. As it says at Template:COI, they themselves cannot remove it. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

how can i get copyright licence?

i want to know that, how to get the copyright permission for my account? if we do not edit any thing during the 4 days time period, so my account will be deleted or will be continue? or i need to add 10 edits? i will wait for 4 days for my account activation?Iqbal Ghori (P) (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Iqbal Ghori (P). There is no such thing as a "copyright permission" on Wikipedia. No editor and not even administrators or arbitrators are allowed to add copyright protected material, with the exception of brief, properly referenced quotations. When you mention ten edits and four days, you seem to be referring to autoconfirmed status. This has nothing to do with copyrighted material, but is rather a status that allows newer editors to work on semiprotected articles, and a few other things such as page moves and file uploads. But brand new accounts can work on most articles as long as their edits comply with our policies and guidelines. No account is "deleted" for inactivity though abusive accounts may be blocked or banned. We have millions of inactive accounts which can be reactivated simply by editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Iqbal Ghori (P), I think you created your previous account called "Mohammad Iqbal Ghori (President ICMAP)"—Constanstin 06:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

so now what can i do if i want to upload my article here? only non-published articles are uploaded here or is there any possibility to upload an article that are already published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqbal Ghori (P) (talk • contribs) 06:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

That is correct. You would have to create a new article (preferably through the Articles for Creation process) almost entirely in your own words. You can use previously published articles as sources, provided they are reliable sources.

Also, as Cullen noted, you seem to be referring to getting an autoconfirmed account. One of the reasons you can't edit certain articles for that period is because it guards against vandalism. To get your account autoconfirmed, all you need to do is make 10 edits total and wait four days. You do not need to make 10 edits within four days. You also won't get autoconfirmed after four days unless you've made at least 10 edits.

For using content from Wikipedia articles elsewhere, see the big red box on this page.

As a side note, please remember to type ~~~~ after all your posts. That automatically changes into your signature. An example of a signature created using that is right below this line.

Gestrid (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Iqbal Ghori (P). If you want to upload anything here which is previously published, it must be properly licensed under an acceptable Creative Commons license, or an equivalent free license. We cannot accept anything from a website lacking an acceptable free license. In addition, the material must comply with our policies and guidelines. If not, it will be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

10 edits what actually it mean? it is necessary to upload an article to complete 10 edits, is it 10 edits or 10 edits is different? actually i m confused about how to complete my 10 edits ?

Iqbal Ghori (P) (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Whenever you click "Edit source" or "Edit" and click "Save page", that is an edit. According to your user contributions page, you've already made 9 edits total. Right now, as you're posting to... well, several places, actually, you're getting closer to those 10 edits.

As a side note, please try to post your question in one place next time so we can keep the discussion consolidated.

Also, we don't "upload" articles. We create them here and they get edited continuously over time. No one "owns" an article.

-- Gestrid (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

ok ok now i get it. thank u so much for helping me. i have one more problem. i want to remove my previous accounts is there any possibility to remove or delete them? if any than please tell me because i m currently receive a message that is; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iqbal_Ghori_(P)#Sockpuppet_investigation now what can i do?

Iqbal Ghori (P) (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Note this editor has been blocked. They can request an unblock from their original account. Iqbal Ghori, if you're reading this, please also read our no original research policy. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your essays. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Bot

Can I request a new bot for myself. Who will create these bots? Volunteers or software developers from Wikimedia? Rainbow Archer (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Rainbow Archer, and welcome to the Teahouse! Volunteers create and maintain bots. Generally, you cannot run the bot unless you created the bot yourself and got it approved to run on Wikipedia. To request that a bot becreated for someone else to maintain, see Wikipedia:Bot requests. -- Gestrid (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Gestrid What is this page for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval? This is different from Wikipedia:Bot requests. --Rainbow Archer (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Rainbow Archer, Wikipedia Bot requests is where people go because they have identified something that can or should be handled by a bot and they would like someone to create one. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval is the page at which anyone who has created a bot must get approval before the bot is allowed to make any edits. Nthep (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Published opinions about someone in people article.

Hi there I have an important question concerning people Wikipedia articles. In the article about Sri Chinmoy that I am working on a few edits at the moment, there is an entire chunk of Chinmoy's biography (Section: Move to the United States) using references from Carlos Santana and John McLaughlin's comments and experiences from the 1970s. This very large paragraph seems to outweigh the rest of the biography section because that particular paragraph seems to actually end up being as much, if not more about Santana and McLaughlin, as about Chinmoy and most certainly is not about Chinmoy's life in the United States as the section should be about. My question then is if famous people, as in this case, make personal comments about someone that are published, do their comments have more 'weight' or so called credibility to Wikipedia just because they are famous? Or is it just the fact that their comments (whether true or false) are published and can then be used as a reference? I would be so grateful if someone who is experienced with this kind of editing/thought process could look at the article and give some feedback on the Move to the United States section? That would be wonderful. Thank you in advance.GrassRoots (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

GrassRoots: that paragraph is one of many, and isn't even the longest of them. It documents Chinmoy's relationship with two other famous people. It includes one negative statement that one of them made about him, with a reference. I strongly believe that this should be retained, the article should be neutral, using all relevant material, and not a hagiography. And it is more informative than the two statements made by Gorbachev, quoted later in the article.

The section titled "Move to the United States" is in fact about the last 43 years of his life, so it is not surprising that it occupies much of the article. The title is misleading. It could be changed to "Life in the United States"; or the section could be split up into shorter sections. Maproom (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Getting a proposed guideline approved

There's a proposed guideline (WP:MICROCON) that was created back in 2008. There was an attempt to get it approved, but that failed.

Fair enough, but I'd like to have another crack at it. If I try that on the Project Micronations talk page, it simply won't draw enough independent interest to generate a meaningful consensus (hell, it probably won't draw enough involved interest either, as the talk page is pretty quiet). Any idea how I'd start getting this approved? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Bromley86, and welcome to the Teahouse! I actually had to get help for this one, as I wasn't sure of the answer, so credit goes to Oshwah for the answer. Anyway, the way to get people to discuss it would be to start a discussion at the Village Pump Policy Proposals page. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Is redrawing a diagram with Inkscape acceptable?

Hello teahouse

I have a diagram from an Expert Opinion published in Germany by the Renewable Energies Agency, an incorporated association, that I want to include in the wikipedia article on the German Renewable Energy Sources Act.^[1]^: 13 I realize that I cannot simply screenshot the diagram and turn it into a PNG. But am I allowed to use it as an underlay in Inkscape and redraw the diagram from scratch? Is that acceptable?

References

^ Pieprzyk, Björn; Hilje, Paula Rojas (May 2009). Erneuerbare Energien — Vorhersage und Wirklichkeit. Vergleich von Prognosen und Szenarien mit der tatsächlichen Entwicklung Erneuerbarer Energien. Deutschland, Europa, Welt — Expert opinion [Renewables — prediction and reality. Comparison of forecasts and scenarios with the actual development of renewable energies. Germany, Europe, World — Expert opinion] (PDF) (in German). Berlin, Germany: Agentur für Erneuerbare Energien (Renewable Energies Agency). Retrieved 2016-07-24.

best regards. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, RobbieIanMorrison, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately the answer is no. A redrawn diagram would be a derivative work of the original. This does not make you the author of the redrawn diagram; you would have coauthored it with the authors of the original diagram. As such, you would not be in the position to license the redrawn diagram under a free license that Wikipedia requires. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Many thanks for the quick reply. That's a pity though, it was an informative diagram. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison: Keep in mind that facts, data or ideas are not copyrightable. If you can come up with a way to draw a diagram of your own that contains the same information – without simply tracing the original one – you may do so. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: I will keep that in mind. Many thanks. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Guest book

Where can i find guest book. Mikael Phillips — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikael Phillips (talk • contribs) 12:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guest_book. Ruslik_Zero 20:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Table problem

I'm having a slight problem while trying to build a table for a home video release of a TV series. For some reason, I can't seem to make the header cells or whatever you call them line up.

Expand to see malformed tables

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center; width: 98%;"
|-
! colspan="2" rowspan="2"| Set
! colspan="2" | Contents
|-
! Episodes !! Shorts
! Blu-ray / DVD artwork
! Bonus features
! Audio commentary
! BD / DVD release date
|-
| rowspan="1" width="1%" style="background: #778899;" |
| 1
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
|-
|}

renders as:

Set		Contents
Set		Episodes	Shorts	Blu-ray / DVD artwork	Bonus features	Audio commentary	BD / DVD release date
	1

For some reason, all the header cells after the double height one will not format correctly. When I try to make them the correct height

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center; width: 98%;"
|-
! colspan="2" rowspan="2"| Set
! colspan="2" | Contents
|-
! Episodes !! Shorts
! rowspan="2"| Blu-ray / DVD artwork
! rowspan="2"| Bonus features
! rowspan="2"| Audio commentary
! rowspan="2"| BD / DVD release date
|-
| rowspan="1" width="1%" style="background: #778899;" |
| 1
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
|-
|}

I end up with this:

Set		Contents
Set		Episodes	Shorts	Blu-ray / DVD artwork	Bonus features	Audio commentary	BD / DVD release date
	1			Blu-ray / DVD artwork	Bonus features	Audio commentary	BD / DVD release date

Does anyone here have sufficient experience with tables that they could help me fix this, or, failing that, could you point me to somewhere where I might find the necessary information? Thanks, G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The first row is four columns wide. The second row is 12 columns wide. The third row is 16 columns wide. No wonder things don't line up. Maproom (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@G S Palmer: I have replied at Help talk:Table#Problems with header cells. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

About article

can i paste an image of the article and when i type it on google will the article appear with the image?103.1.70.76 (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, IP user, your question is too vague to allow a clear answer. If you are talking about pasting something in Wikipedia, then that something must be free of copyright (either public domain by age or explicit statement; or explicitly licensed under a suitable free licence): see WP:DCM. If talking about reusing something from Wikipedia, you may freely reuse nearly anything from Wikipedia (all except certain images which are non-free) provided you attribute it properly: see WP:REUSE. If you mean something else, you'll need to be clearer. --ColinFine (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I want to be a paid editor on Wikipedia.

Kindly can anyone enlighten my knowledge on how to become a paid editor on Wikipedia? I have been for almost 2 years now and now I wanted to expand my career as a writer. I'll be grateful if anyone of you can assist me in my ambition.Syed Zain Hussain (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Almost all of us are volunteers, including administrators. We require anyone who is being paid to tell us who they are working for, and we block any paid editor who refuses to tell us who they work for. Wikipedia is not the place to make a career (at least directly). By the way, you say you've been here for almost two years, but your contributions only date to today. What other accounts have you edited under? Ian.thomson (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging: Syed Zain Hussain—Constanstin 13:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't get it. I am have submitted articles on other sites such as Ezine articles and HuffingtonPost but it is my first time here on Wikipedia. Please I just want my article to published on Wikipedia. If anyone can do it for me I can send you an email containing my desired Page.Syed Zain Hussain (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You seem to think Wikipedia publishes articles like it's a news website. It's not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Trust me, there's a difference.

In any case, if you want to write an article, I suggest going through the Articles for Creation process so your article can be reviewed by other more experienced editors.

Also, keep in mind that none of us are paid by the Wikimedia Foundation. We are all volunteers.

-- Gestrid (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte Spencer

I am just curious, how did other editors found out that I tried to create a disambiguation page? They edited after I edited. This page was created in 2011. It can't be in their watchlist. And this page can't appear in the list of newly created pages. Rainbow Archer (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I just checked, one of the editors This is Paul actually created the redirect, so it was on his watchlist, but other editors? Rainbow Archer (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can add a page to their watchlist at any time, Rainbow Archer, so it's quite possible that other editors were watching that page. I suspect that there is another explanation here, though. Perhaps Mr RD could explain how he discovered that you had turned it into a disambiguation page? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I stumbled upon it while patrolling newly created pages. Though after seeing the history even I'm not sure how it happened to appear in there. Mr RD 18:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Redirects turned into articles are included in Page Curation. See point 4 at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help#What's the difference between this and the old Special:NewPages? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

who is the longest serving admin?

curious 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:62 (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

My guess is that Jimbo Wales is among the earliest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It would be whoever the first admin was on or after January 15, 2001, the day Wikipedia began. Of course, I doubt there was just one administrator. There were probably at least a few. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The very earliest administrators back in 2001 were Bomis employees, since that company hosted the Wikipedia software back then, long before the Wikimedia Foundation began. Jimmy Wales ran that company. Here is a very early conversation about granting administrator powers to other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I just looked at that nostalgia website. First of all, I had no idea that existed. Second of all, I had no idea Wikipedia used to look so old. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If Jimbo Wales is founder of wikipedia then he is surely the first admin of wikipedia.Silent Hunter^Talk 11:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The original software didn't have a concept of 'administrator' - indeed it didn't even have real logins. (Logging in was just choosing a username - but anyone could choose the same username with no authentication!). In the early days, I was the only "administrator" in practice - since I personally did page deletions, etc. I can't remember at the moment how Usemod (the software we used at the time) handled bans, but I sort of vaguely remember that there was a way to ban editing per ip address.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

how build article

how do you start a new article? ~Sandstorm120 Sandstorm120 (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Your first article, which has lots of good advice. Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 03:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Constanstin/common.js

What is the purpose of "User:Constanstin/common.js"? I found this link from Mediawiki:Common.js. and i know .js is a javascript file, but what is the purpose of whole"User:Constanstin/common.js". If someone knows please tell me.—Constanstin 14:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Constantine, and welcome to the Teahouse! Common.js is where a user would put any Java scripts they want to run whenever they're logged in. Since you've been to the Teahouse before, you may have seen people archive discussions with OneClickArchiver. That is run by putting code that a user (who is unfortunately banned) has created into your common.js file so that you can use it. Basically, common.js is a page you can use to make editing here easier. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

javascript, not Java scripts. Java is a different language. Maproom (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

If i can add something on my common.js, then what happens. It's just confusing.—Constanstin 16:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Basically, common.js is where you yourself (and no one else) can install or uninstall plugins for use on Wikipedia. The old way of installing Twinkle involved using that page. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User scripts has many examples of scripts that users can add to their common.js without having to know JavaScript programming. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

confused about citing.

an editor noted my unintentional ignorance of properly citing references for my edit. How do I properly cite a references AaronottoJennings (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi AaronottoJennings. You might find Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Citing sources helpful. There is really no single correct way to cite sources on Wikipedia as explained in WP:CITESTYLE, so don't worry too much about making mistakes. Part of editing is making mistakes, and any that we make can almost always be corrected by another editor. Another thing that you might find helpful is to take a look at some of Wikipedia's featured articles and see what kind of citation styles are being used for certain types of articles. If you look at an article via the edit window you can see all of the syntax used by editors to get the software do certain things, including the formatting of references. You can also use your user sandbox to practice using different citation styles and citation templates before actually adding them to an article.

Now, having posted all of that, I hope that your very first edit to Wikipedia is not something that you will be repeating in the future. Such edits are considered to be disruptive and vandalism and are not really what Wikipedia editing is supposed to be about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Need conflict mediation

I think I need an uninvolved, experienced editor to mediate in a personal conflict involving personal attacks, and I don’t want to escalate to ANI because somehow I don’t think that would help the other editor’s disposition toward me (I want to be able to work with him, not have him blocked). Where can I turn? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Reliability of Wikipedia and Vandalism

Dear Seniors, some people in real life questioned the reliability of Wikipedia, and said If any one can edit Wikipedia, even without registered user name i.e I.P and makes wrong edits or spoils the content of Wikipedia, such as putting a wrong information suppose some editors through its registered account or IP edit Wikipedia article London and edits that the London is in United States rather than UK, how will it be reliable that anyone might put a wrong information, and if a person reads that article and go to London but thinking that London is in USA as information placed on that article. or suppose there is any article of a city in which some editor (IP) puts wrong info which does not really exists there, suppose one puts a info that bla-bla (City) has a prostitution/ brothel, but actually that city/town does not have that thing, then how Wikipedia is reliable, what happens to these edits, MY response was that the senior Wikipedian could revert that incorrect info edits which is called Vandalism on Wikipedia. but again they asked if no senior Wikipedian reverts that wrong info on the article for two or more days then that wrong info must be existed in the article. but still they were stubborn to accept it, I was confused how to convince them, but I persuaded that the wrong information or vandalism is reverted by the Wikipedia bots or the authorized users. could you please understand what they actually wanted to say and did I answered them the right information as I could? and does really Wikipedia is not 100% reliable subjected to the Vandalism?. Thanks...Jogi 007 (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Sad to say, but your RL friends are correct. ~~There aren't really any bots that revert vandalism~~, so it's down to other users to spot it. On an article with high traffic, like the London one you mention, it'll likely get picked up pretty quickly, but on more poorly patrolled ones it'd be fairly easy to vandalise. Even then, blatant stuff (like "Tom is gay") usually gets picked up fairly fast too, but more subtle stuff can exist for years. List articles especially are not at all reliable, IMO. Bromley86 (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, there are bots that revert blatant vandalism (swearing, etc.). Bromley86 (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jogi don. Please read Reliability of Wikipedia for an overview of the issues that concern you. WP:Vandalism describes the challenges of fighting vandalism and the tools and techniques that vandal fighters use. Our automated anti-vandalism bot is very effective though not perfect. Please see User:ClueBot NG/FAQ for more information. One of our core content policies is Verifiability. No one should blindly believe something just because it appears in Wikipedia. Instead, look at the references, external links and further reading at the bottom of an article, especially if something in the article does not look right. And learn to recognize article quality. An article on an obscure topic that is poorly referenced may well be less worthy of trust than Featured articles or Good articles, which have gone through an extensive review process. We all need to improve our critical thinking skills. If you see an error in an article, fix it and furnish a reference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You can read an excellent article about ClueBot NG and vandal fighting here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

While the article touches on it, I would like to add that the Bayesian filtering ClueBot NG uses is much more powerful that a blacklist of naughty words to detect profanity. The "praise" page of its predecessor includes this gem, and you would wonder how a bot could catch that. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Jogi don, there is unfortunately no doubt that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information, but neither is any source. You can blame the journalist that reports inaccurate information, but it still happens that newspapers and the like publish "facts" that are 100% wrong. Actually, a much-commented study found that Wikipedia was about as accurate in science articles as the (professional-edited, paying) Encyclopedia Britannica. On the one hand science articles are probably one of WP's strong suits (less incentive to vandalize, and the demographics of editors heavily favors it), but on the other hand, Wikipedia in 2016 is much better than it was in 2005. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all of you for helping me to answer the people encounter with me when they ask about some thing Wikipedia reliablity and other things..Jogi 007 (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

How to make Wiki artiles NOT read like a catalog?

Hi, I am a new user to Wiki and have been learning a lot about it and think that it is an awesome platform for people to learn just about anything. I recently have been drafting an article about Evoqua Water Technologies to inform people about the water industry. I have been trying to get it approved, and have been in the process of editing it and resubmitting it to make progress in the approval process. Mostly recently I received a comment that my product, services and brands entries read like a catalog. And I can't seem to figure out how else to organize the content without listing it like I do. Here is the link to my draft:[1]. If you could provide me with any helpful advice to get this approved that would be greatly appreciated!

Hope to hear from you soon.

Thank You,Whitney Norris Whit.marie (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the draft. The two refs I looked at (Products and Services:Acivated Carbon and Biosolid) didn't support the points they were meant to. So, when Robert says " The draft should focus on what others have written about the company rather than what it has written. The lists of products and brands read like catalogs.", what he means is you need to find an article that talks about Evoqua's products and services and use that as the basis of this section. Rather than copying the list from your bosses and trying to find support for it.

BTW, you need to have a read of WP:COI. tl;dr - you can't edit an article on Evoqua as you're an employee. Bromley86 (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Bromley for bring those two reference upon my attention. Those must be the only two references that don't mention Evoqua and its products. The majority of my references consists of newsarticles that talk about Evoqua and the water industry written by outside sources. I will find different new articles/ magazine articles to base that info off of. I did read the COI...I also made a paid closure statement on my user page to recognize that. The document is informational and non-bias about the water industry. I will take your suggestions and correct what you suggested thank you.

Whit.marie (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

May I add that as somebody working in this industry for far too many years - my expectation of the article would look something like this. I also have to admit that I am seeing very little evidence of notability - the long list of products hindered rather than helped. I am also intrigued how a brand new editor can get to grips with reference formatting quite so quickly? Is this your first experience at editing or have there been previous accounts that you have used? Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Whit.marie. Another glaring problem with the draft article is the extensive use of Business Wire as a source. Business Wire is not an independent, reliable source but instead is a service that hosts press releases online. Press releases should be used exceptionally sparingly. Your article should summarize what independent, reliable sources say about the company and use of sources generated by the company should be limited to basic uncontroversial facts like the CEO's name and the headquarters city. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Do not remove AFC decline and AFC comment templates from draft articles. They say not to remove them. When the article is approved, they will be removed by a script. Until then, they stay with the article for the benefit of reviewers so that the reviewers can see what the history was. Maybe you didn't notice that notation and didn't know any better. Now you do. I have restored the templates. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I just saw this comment. I did't know that Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whit.marie (talk • contribs) 19:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that template added? I may have deleted it again after you added it in. Again, I am sorry I am new to this. Also, I have spent some time updating the draft with independent references and paragraph formation based on the feedback everyone has given me.... Here is a link to the newest version [2]. Let me know what you think.

Thanks again for your time and helpful advice

Whit.marie (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I've re-re-added the deleted templates. You had removed them when you made this edit. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Whit.marie, your draft article is still packed full of sources that are not independent of the company. The Water Online sources are word for word reprints of company press releases, and the Neptune Benson sources are not independent either since Evoqua owns that company. You need to summarize what 100% independent reliable sources say about the company, not what the company or its affiliates, business partners, employees or press releases say about the company. Those are not independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Whit.marie. A good rule of thumb when writing an article about a company is to ignore absolutely everything that the company or its associates have ever said, whether on its website, in print, in press releses, in interviews, on blogs or social media, or anywhere else. If you are able to write a reasonable article based on published sources without any of these, then you can add in some uncontroversial factual data from the company, such as places and dates. But if without its own statements you can't find enough reliably published sources to create an article, then the company is by definition not notable and no article will be accepted however it is written. --ColinFine (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Whit.marie Though I cannot be sure some of these are not regurgitating press releases – and also be aware that sources can be a blend of primary material and secondary material, for example, the quotation of insiders appearing in an otherwise independent article, are primary material – some examples of the types of independent-seeming sources you should be looking for: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and you might see if there's anything usable in this Google Scholar search. Also, since the company seems to have changed name, you might want to run searches of Google Books, News, Scholar, etc. using the prior name(s). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Awesome thank you for those sources...I was not aware of google books, etc. This content will be very helpful!

Whit.marie (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome Whit.marie. I'd again draw your attention to the Financial conflict of interest section though. While it's commendable that you've declared a COI exists because you're paid to edit WP by Evoqua (and I really do mean that), my reading of that section is that as a "Communications Specialist Intern at Evoqua Water Technologies" you really should not be deploying an article on Evoqua. There's of course a chicken-and-the-egg situation, where you can't make an edit request as the article does not exist, but the answer I've seen in similar situations is: if it's notable, someone else will create the article. Bromley86 (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank You, Bromley86. I am aware of this situation... I understand the article does not exist, I am the one who created it. I've done excessive amounts of research for the content and the content I have written is non-bias and very informational about the water industry. I do understand the COI policy, however with a company as notable with numerous sources, having an informational Wiki article on the company should be considered. How would someone recognize this situation to write a Wiki article on it, if they aren't affiliated with the company? Do you mean a Wiki editor would recognize this to write about a notable company like Evoqua?

Whit.marie (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Bromley86, I have to side with Whit.marie regarding your criticism. Whit.marie is not working in article space but rather is creating a draft through the Articles for Creation process. One of the reasons that AfC was initiated was precisely for this reason - to allow good faith editors with a declared conflict of interest to draft an article for review by experienced, uninvolved editors. There is nothing at all improper about what Whit.marie is trying to do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure that we've established that it is notable. Leaving that aside for the moment, then the way it usually works is that someone like Velella will come along and create a small article, possibly even just a stub with a couple of reliable 3rd party sources. Then there's usually a drive to flesh it out with basic biographical information, not all of which will be derived from 3rd party sources (i.e. a relatively small amount of information that's referenced to the company website, press releases, etc.). Over time it'll grow, as its mentions in reliable 3rd party sources grow. Bromley86 (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, seems I was mistaken then. Cheers Cullen. Bromley86 (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Bromley86 and Cullen³²⁸ for your feedback. I have included several 3rd party independent sources that --Fuhghettaboutit provided me with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whit.marie (talk • contribs) 12:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is the newest verison [[12]] I have removed all the brands& productions sections and focused on history oriented content based off of the independent sourced I found. Whit.marie (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Whit.marie

Orphan page linking

I have created a page : <Chamba Chukh> for a traditional specialty chilli preparation from the Indian Himalayas. It is a cult product in the local region and expanding fast. I wish to link this page to the Hot Sauces page and add other 'uplinks'. I don't want to edit other pages though till I know that it won't cause any editorial issues by me inadvertently stepping on any toes or affecting someone else's submission. I get it crowd sourced content and the community will inspect and weed out any issues. Still want to be sure that its ok to link it up. Thanks a lot.

anujkapsAnujkaps (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Anujkaps, and welcome to the Teahouse! Trust me: You won't step on any toes as long as you edit in a constructive manner. One of our rules here on Wikipedie is to be bold when editing. However, your article has a more pressing issue: It doesn't seem to meet our general notability guidelines in its current state, as it doesn't cite any sources at all. It risks getting deleted, especially since a discussion regarding whether or not it should get deleted has already started. I suggest you add some reliable sources within the next few days so it doesn't get deleted. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

How to use Teahouse?

How do you the Teahouse? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

By doing exactly what you're doing right now: asking a question. A more experienced editor (like me) would then answer the question (like I'm doing right now). -- Gestrid (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank. I thought I was doing it right, but I was just wondering if I was missing something. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Article saving

Greetings!

I wanted to try out one article to write but I cannot write it whole. So is there any way that I can save my work and can continue to add information because there is short amount of time for me to write the whole article. So, is there any way that I can continue this work? Amy2563 (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Amy! Yes, there are several ways you can work incrementally on a draft, one is to create it in your own user space. If you have a good idea about the title, put it in the box below and click the blue button. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

More generally, Amy2563, I recommend you read Your first article. One of the many things that essay suggests is using the Article wizard to create a draft in draft space. Normally nobody will interfere with a draft (as long as it doesn't contain something really naughty like a copyright violation or a personal attack) and you can carry on working on it until you think it is ready to submit for review. --ColinFine (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

edit not reflected on the page

I can only see my most recent edit if I'm logged in. (This refers to the Icosahedrite page) To make things even more confusing - the edit is listed on the "View History" page, but is not reflected in the article itself. Or maybe I'm going crazy. 66.215.92.241 (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Similar questions have been asked recently at the help desk. You may need to bypass your cache. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem is at our end so a cache bypass in the user's browser doesn't help. Many pages currently have to be purged for unregistered users to see the current version. I have reported it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Unregistered users see old revisions. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Success! Thank you, David.

Quasiopinionated (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Revised Page Not Truly Saved

I've been editing an article I created a few months ago, but the most recent version of the page is not being ultimately saved. The revised page and the recent edits show up when I'm logged in and editing, but after I've saved and logged out, then have Googled the page, the old page is brought up, not showing any of the more recent edits. The article in question is "John McPartland" a writer of pulp fiction in the 1950s. So what's going on? Any assistance is appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGrayLion (talk • contribs) 18:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. See #edit not reflected on the page above. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Need to know about Wikipedia Google Knowledge Graph

Hello Teahouse, it is very nice visiting this page as a Wikipedian Member. I would like to know more about google knowledge graph on Wikipedia. It is known that millions of users on Wikipedia creates article everyday but the anonymous who would like to check on a particular person on google might not be satisfy about his or her searches. How does Wikipedia Google Knowledge Graphs works. I have an interest on this topic and would like a Wikipedia member who has an experienced on this to explain to me more on my user page thanks.--Jamzy4 (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC) (moved from Teahouse talk page by Checkingfax (talk • contribs))

Hi Jamzy4, welcome to the Teahouse. It's just called Google Knowledge Graph. It often includes an excerpt from a Wikipedia article but it's made by Google. Wikipedia has no control over it. See Template:HD/GKG for a standard reply to people who complain to us about errors in a Google Knowledge Graph. The errors they complain about are nearly always in a part Google did not take from Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding pages to a category

Hi! I have recently added a number of pages to a category and the category is now at the bottom of these pages but they aren't listed on the category page. How long does it take before these pages will actually appear when someone views the category? Thanks 6hqh4R73 (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

It depends on how many pages Wikipedia had to update before you added the category (which gave it more pages to update). To update the category manually, go to the page (which is Category:People educated at Methodist College Belfast, unless I'm mistaken) and, up where the web address (which looks like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_educated_at_Methodist_College_Belfast), add ?action=purge to the very end (so it looks like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_educated_at_Methodist_College_Belfast?action=purge). This will cause the page to update to the most recent version. This works for any page on Wikipedia. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@6hqh4R73: A purge of a category page does actually not affect the listed pages. It only affects the part of the page which is made by the wiki source of the category page. If you add a page to a category by editing the page itself then it usually shows up in the category immediately (you may have to bypass your cache to see it). If the category is added via an edit to a used template then it sometimes takes a long time, but can be forced right away by making a null edit (not a purge) of the page missing from the category. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

How do I post that a discussion is ensuing on a particular page?

I'd like to inform both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict about a particular discussion. How would I do this? Thank you. Kamel Tebaast 19:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kamel Tebaast: WikiProjects are a good place to post centralized alerts and pointers to discussions. A formal request for comments can also be put into specific categories, such as "politics" or "history", which will bring in uninvolved editors who have subscribed to these alerts. Wikipedia's guideline on canvassing allows you to contact individual editors and invite them to the discussion, but it's tricky to do so without breaking the guideline's rules. For this reason, it's best to simply avoid contacting users directly. Just post a neutral notice at the relevant WikiProjects. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Kamel Tebaast 21:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit Username

I inadvertently mistyped my username. How do I edit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTrrstman (talk • contribs) 13:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Look at WP:Changing username. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi MTrrstman, welcome to the Teahouse. Since you have no edits, it's easier and perfectly OK to just create a new account and never use the old one. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

However, if you just want to go ahead and change your username, click here if you've registered an email address with Wikipedia in your preferences (at the bottom). If you haven't registered an email with Wikipedia and don't plan on doing that, click here and follow the instructions exactly to request a rename. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Either way, if you are suddenly logged out of your account or cannot login to it, it most likely means the rename has been done and you should login using your new username. Your password will not change. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

How do I sign on guestbook

How do I sign on guestbook.vang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ving rhames (talk • contribs) 20:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ving rhames and welcome to the Teahouse! If you need help signing a guestbook please check out this link which will teach you what and what not to do. Hope this helped! Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 20:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ving rhames: Do you mean at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guests/Left column#Ving rhames? I have made some fixes to your entry.[13] You can change the text after quote= but do not remove quote=. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

How do I attribute free content correctly

I'm starting up a new page (my first!): Margaret Nomentana I've received permission from Nomentana to use her bio (that's on her website) on wikipedia. How do I list this on the page so that it's not flagged as plagiarizing?

Many thanks, Laura Lauradipiazza (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Lauradipiazza and welcome to the Teahouse. Although it might be possible to do what you've described, there are some very good reasons why you shouldn't do it. First, articles are expected to be based on reliable sources that are independent of the topic. This means you should not use a person's website as a source for an article about them, or a company's brochure for an article about that company, etc. Second, material you'll find on someone's own website is unlikely to be worded in a neutral and encyclopedic tone, and it should not be used verbatim for that reason. The third reason is related to what you have called a permission: Wikipedia does not allow materials that have been donated to be used by "Wikipedia only"; permission has to be given for anyone to use the material for any purpose including commercially, and few people with commercial interests of their own are willing to do so. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Because you say you got permission from the person the article is about, I must ask if you have a conflict of interest. (Click the link to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy.) If you do, I must also ask if you are being paid to create the article. If you are being paid, you must make it clear on the article. Not doing so is likely to get you blocked because you will not have complied with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for all that information. I definitely am not getting paid for this. I know her work well and believe that she should be on wikipedia. This platform is quite alien to me and I see I have a lot to learn. I'll take down the page (if I can figure that out), until I revise the copy completely. Thanks again for all the help! Lauradipiazza (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lauradipiazza: I'll just move the article to what we call draftspace for you, if you'd prefer that. If you'd like I can also add it to Articles for Creation so others can review it and give you feedback before it gets "published". -- Gestrid (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

How do I get a Figure onto a Wikipedia Page?

Where can I go to learn the acceptable formats for creating a figure and learning how to place it onto a Wikipedia page? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joflaher (talk • contribs) 17:43, 27 July 2016‎ (UTC)

While this is always a reasonable place to ask for help, it may not be the best place for you to ask for your help. I see that you are an experienced editor with a history of contributions to technical articles in biochemistry, and it is true that adding figures to technical articles is often difficult. You might try also asking for help at a WikiProject such as WP:WikiProject Chemistry. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not trying to say not to ask here, but mainly to point out to other editors that the help that you need may be more complicated than the help that new editors usually ask for here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Robert, a few weeks ago I was slightly scolded for being an experienced editor asking a question on here. I made the point at the time that there is no indication on this page that it is primarily directed at new editors. Perhaps someone can edit the page to indicate that. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I've included the wording from WP:Teahouse, in order to be consistent. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks David - much appreciated. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately another editor (user:Sam Sailor) has decided to revert my edit, so we are back to square one. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

My concern about this question is not that the editor has been around for a few years. Although the Teahouse is primarily for newer editors, sometimes older editors get stumped, and in my opinion, are free to ask a clearly phrased question here, as long as no shenanigans are involved. My concern is that the question is too vague to answer directly. The word figure has many meanings. My best guess is that Joflaher is asking either about some type of illustration such as a drawing or a diagram, or about a table. In the first case, create the image off Wikipedia using a graphics program, and save it. The JPEG format is OK for photos, and other formats like SVG and PNG are also supported. See Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload for more details. Upload the image to Wikipedia Commons and it can then be used in an article here. If you are talking about a table, which can be created here on Wikipedia through coding, then please read HELP:TABLE. If you are asking another question, please clarify. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I asked for directions as to how to add a diagram of a complex biochemical pathway to a page. I will follow your directions. Again, thanks. joflaher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.11.89.216 (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

changes are not appear in all devices

I created my first article few days ago about a person . due to my lack of knowldge about process I saved a version without links and was entitled for speedy deletion and later I made the article for formal and organized and add links. but now the changes are only appear in mobile devices and only if i log through my ID , otherwise the people land into that older unorganized version, please help me to figure it out. my article name is Nandana LokuwithanaRogerrabelo (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rogerrabelo, welcome to the Teahouse. Our servers currently have an issue where logged out users often see a former version of a page. It should eventually sort itself out but until then, an affected page can usually be fixed by the procedure at Wikipedia:Purge. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

[pieprzyk-and-hilje-2009-1] Pieprzyk, Björn; Hilje, Paula Rojas (May 2009). Erneuerbare Energien — Vorhersage und Wirklichkeit. Vergleich von Prognosen und Szenarien mit der tatsächlichen Entwicklung Erneuerbarer Energien. Deutschland, Europa, Welt — Expert opinion [Renewables — prediction and reality. Comparison of forecasts and scenarios with the actual development of renewable energies. Germany, Europe, World — Expert opinion] (PDF) (in German). Berlin, Germany: Agentur für Erneuerbare Energien (Renewable Energies Agency). Retrieved 2016-07-24.

[1]