Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 326

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 320

←

Archive 324

→

help improving an article

I submitted an article for review and it was rejected because it was not 'thoughtout' Can anyone give advice on how to improve my article 'Wiener Connector' Here is what my reviewer said: " Im not doubting the the notabity of the subject, as I know there many articls on wikpedia simur to the one u wrote, one defense those those have thoughout the article. thats the only reason I decline the article to be honest, U need to inline your sources into the article. I also invited u to teahouse/ article for creation help area, where espance ediotors help people writing there articles for arc. so if u have any other questions u can ask there or me and I can help to the best of my abrity" Thanks so much! Natalisky (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Natalisky. I can't make head or tail of what the reviewer has said. But the problem is that most of the statements in Draft:Wiener Connector are not referenced, and the two references that are given seem to be primary references. What you need is a number of independent published sources which talk about Wiener connectors. Your existing reference shows that somebody (including you, I suspect) has published a paper on this topic. But there are thousands of topics on which somebody has published a paper: why should Wikipedia have an article on this one? The answer, as with all topics, is that Wikipedia has articles on subjects which several people have already thought it worth writing substantial articles on and published them in reliable places. If you can reference a couple more papers about WC's (not just papers citing this one, but actually talking substantially about WC's), preferably by different authors from the original paper, then this will establish that the topic is notable in Wikipedia's special sense. Even better would be secondary sources such as textbooks. But if these do not exist, then I think that does not at present have a place in Wikipedia.

The point which I guess the reviewer intended to make was a different one: every piece of information in a Wikipedia article should be individually referenced. It's fine to reference the same source multiple times (see WP:NAMEDREF for how to do it) - but an article which depends almost entirely on a single source is regarded as a weak article. --ColinFine (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I see, that makes sense. Thank you for your response and for parsing that for me!

I can definitely add reference to support some of the discussion about the Steiner Tree and the proofs and algorithms. The Wiener Connector itself is a new topic but is very related to the well-known Steiner Tree and the well-known Wiener Index. I have referenced these just as links to the wikipedia page, but I will also add references to paper/books on these topics (a few I've added already). Would that be suitable? For example the Estrada Index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estrada_index) has only 3 references and all are from the authors/coauthors.

Also, is there a preference between citing a paper by showing the name, title, etc. or just by adding the link?

Thanks!! Natalisky (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Natalisky. If the WC is a new topic, then it probably should not yet have a Wikipedia article. As for citations, there is an extremely strong preference for showing full bibliographic information, not just a link. There is no particular format required, but all the references in a single article should be consistent. I prefer to use the citation templates such as {{cite journal}}, but again this is not required. See referencing for beginners for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing a rough draft?

Where can I go to have someone look over a rough draft of an article I am writing. i seem to be unable to find the live chat option I was using in the past. Asb2324 (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Asb2324, welcome to the Teahouse. You could ask for help here, or else the link to the live chat is here. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Asb2324: - I have added some useful links to your user talk page, including WP:Your first article. The most obvious thing about User:Asb2324/sandbox is that it contains no references at all. To satisfy Wikipedia's requirement for verifiability and to demonstrate notability it is essential that the article text be supported by references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thurlaston Brook Article - i cannot reference this as i wrote it entirely from my own survey

Please can you assist?

I wrote the above article charting the course of the Thurlaston Brook, but it has been rejected as it does not contain references that can be checked. This is almost entirely due to the fact that nobody else has walked its course and charted it acuratly. I have done this several times, and written peices on it for school and later local magazines. When the only evidence is my own, i will struggle to draw reference to external sources.

i did quote taht the one peice i could not physically walk was taken from arial photos courtesy of Google erath, and i did namecheck O/S maps from various times. The only other peice of documentation is a very brief section in the Leicestershire county council document on watercourse (not entirely acurate).

I do not mind if this never gets published as i have a copy of it which has circulated locally, but i think Wikipedia may be a little harsh if they expect all items to have direct reference documents which can be sourced - not every mundane subject has been previously studied!

I submit to your own judgement.

Stef Pegg86.135.93.160 (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The situation is very clear. If there are no published independent reliable sources the subject does not have a Wikipedia article, as it fails the requirement for verifiability. It sounds as if your survey is a valuable piece of work, but it is original research so Wikipedia cannot use it unless it is published elsewhere. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

For the benefit of other readers, I guess that the draft concerned might be User:Prodraught/sandbox/Thurlaston Brook. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The articles in local magazines can be cited, and the school magazine pieces may be citable. Otherwise this is outside WIkipedia's scope, it may belong on Wikibooks? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC).

This would definitely not fit within the scope of Wikibooks! StudiesWorld (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)/00:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Emacs Editing

I have been editing for a while and I have tried to find an Emacs package to assist me in my editing. Does one exist? StudiesWorld (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)/23:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse StudiesWorld. I found something that may be relevant at meta:Mediawiki.el. I don't know anything beside what is says there and in the linked Launchpad.net page. —teb728 t c 00:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Not clear how to add needed source info on an image

A U.S. Government seal that I uploaded as a non-free symbol (SABlogo.png) has been flagged with {{di-no source}}, so I am trying to add the source info but cannot figure out the syntax to add the source info. Can someone please point me in the right direction? Wdahm (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wdahm. The flagging of the image as lacking a source is just the tip of the spear. You also need to make a case for fair use of the image, and fair use images may never be used outside of the article mainspace, so the image cannot be used at all in the draft (I have turned it into a link there, as well as some other Fair use images being displayed there). The good thing is that since the image is the logo for the subject of the draft, it would likely be accepted as fair use. (However, some of the other FU images that were being used in the draft are not such good prospects.) Anyway, what I suggest is that you click on File:Air Force Association (logo).jpg, and emulate what has been done there, tailoring of course for the specifics of this image. But do not return the image to the draft unless and until the draft is accepted and moved to the mainspace. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Wdahm What are the sources of the logo and the other files? Are you sure they are not a works of the US Federal government? If some or all are works of the Federal government, they are in the public domain rather than fair use.

Also, is the subject of your draft the same as United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board? If so you should be editing that article rather than creating a duplicate. —teb728 t c 23:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

But if the questioner is the man named at http://www.sab.af.mil/ as SAB Chair he ought not to be editing directly on this subject. I have pointed him at the guidance regarding conflict of interest. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Userboxes on right of userpage

Hi, In an attempt to spruce up my userpage and make it a little more lively im wanting to add userboxes. However I can't, for the life of me, figure out how to get them on the right hand side of the page like they normally are. Iv'e tried adding |, different placement and some other things but they just appear right in the middle or above my text. How do I get them on the right side of the user page like this user has them - User:Bender235 LethalFlower (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You can use {{Userboxtop}}. I have taken the liberty of changing the url in your question into a wikilink. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspaper as a reference

Hi,

I would like to ask if physical newspaper articles can be used as a reference, and it cannot be found anywhere online.

As there is very little online news articles about the organization I am writing about to be used as reference, can I upload an image of the newspaper article (if I can find one) and use it as reference?

Typing a lot (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Typing a lot: Welcome to the Teahouse! While most of Wikipedia's sources are indeed online, published print sources are also acceptable (even if you can't find it online). You wouldn't be able to take a picture of the newspaper and upload it, however, as the newspaper article would be copyrighted, and it would potentially be a copyright violation to upload it and link to it from Wikipedia. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for answering me @SuperHamster:! If I am not allowed to upload the newspaper article onto Wikipedia (& further adding it to my article) and use its image as reference , can I still take the information it had provided and use it in my article? (not copying it directly of course) If it can be done so, would I need to provide a reference to it? And how do I provide a reference to a newspaper article as there is no link to give? Typing a lot (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem, @Typing a lot: Yes, you can still use the newspaper for information for an article (that's what I was trying to say before, at least). You would simply cite the newspaper article as the source of your information, instead of an online source. Citing newspapers and other offline sources is very similar to citing online sources, with the biggest difference being the lack of a URL (which is fine!). You may use Template:Cite_news to cite a newspaper, filling out fields as needed:

<ref>{{cite news |last= |first= |date= |title= |url= |newspaper= |location= |access-date= }}</ref>

To make this easier, you may also use the "Cite" feature in the editing toolbar at the top of the edit box (see here for what it looks like, on the far right). Clicking "Cite", and then selecting the "cite news" option from the dropdown menu labelled "Templates" will give you a little pop-out form that lets you fill the fields you need (after which it will automatically generate the reference code I just gave above). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You may also find Help:Referencing for beginners to be of help. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed explanation and help @SuperHamster:! I really appreciate it! Here's hoping my article can be vastly improved upon. Thanks again! Typing a lot (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding to the above answer, Typing a lot, when you use a newspaper article which is not available online, it is important to provide all available relevant information. That would include the full title and subtitle of the article, the reporter's full name if the article is signed, the name of the newspaper, the city of publication if not part of the newspaper name, the date of publication, and the page number and section. If we have an article about the newspaper, wikilink it. The same applies to offline magazines and books. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:18, 29 March 2015 (iUTC)

Thanks for the extra help and guideline @Cullen328:! Can I ask where do I list all these details on? On my article itself? Typing a lot (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome, Typing a lot. Please read Referencing for beginners for instructions on how to format your references properly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Cullen328:! Alright, I will check it out there!Typing a lot (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Trouble signing in

I've been having problems signing in for a some time now. First I'm told I'm using the wrong password (I haven't changed it), and then it just doesn't let me in without any other message. I've also had problems when editing articles: My computer has frozen and sometimes shutdown. Now I want to delete my account. How do I do this now that I am not being let in to it? -Capikiw 186.84.1.82 (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. It is not possible to delete an account. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! welcome to Teahouse.
I will advice please check the Caps Lock!
Or you can click on Forgot your password? But you must have provided an e-mail while registeration!
Or it can be a cookie problem too!
If you are certain that cookies are enabled, make sure that you haven't inadvertently listed the wiki's domain on a list of sites for which cookies are never allowed: this feature is available in all recent browsers. Also make sure your computer's date and time are set correctly; if they are not, cookies may expire before they are supposed to. Note that some firewall and ad-blocking software may interfere with the cookie that the wiki uses to keep a person logged in.

Hope that helps: or you need to create a new account!
aGastya ✉ let's talk about it :) 17:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia need cookies enabled to work? Doesn't this make it easier for hackers/crackers to attack a computer? Also: Why need for an email address? Thanks to both for your answers.

By the way...I don't like the idea of an account for all the edits. IP addresses can easily change (in Dynamic IP systems), so the users are more annonymous. With an account, one's edits can be traced and so, a user's edits can be more easily be targeted for "undo"ing according to someone's "agenda." -Capikiw 186.84.1.82 (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi 186.84.1.82, I must correct you on one thing: IPs are not more anonymous than accounts. Right now your IP is showing that you edit from somewhere in Colombia. It you had an account no-one would have seen that. And to add to the info above, if you create a second account, you must declare this on the user pages of both accounts, otherwise you may be accused of sockpuppetry. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 18:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

(I probably shouldn't be answering because I'm not a host...) Hi 186.84.1.82, you shouldn't need an email address to create a Wikipedia account. The email option is there to let others contact you outside of Wikipedia only if you want to. Hope this helps, CabbagePotato (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Capikiw and CabbagePotato

email account is helpful, if you forget your password then wiki will reset your password

and send a new password on your email account.

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 01:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes Aftab is right: though it is optional, it is the only key to access your account if you loose your password.
aGastya ✉ let's talk about it :) 04:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Company Page

We are having an unbiased individual edit our company page and want to ensure it is entirely neutral so we avoid it being removed. We have reviewed it many times to make sure it's all facts and no promotion. What is the best way to ensure this stays up?

Jessiepgoldberg (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You would need to remove all the advertising blurb which is currently there, and what remains would need to be material supported by references to what has been written about the subject by published reliable sources independent of the company. As it stands, Karma (ISP) obviously qualifies for speedy deletion under criterion G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion) because you replaced whatever material was referenced to sources (including the New York Times) by promotional material without any sources whatever. To prevent it being deleted immediately, I will revert your edits, but it had already been tagged as being an advert. When someone tries again to improve the article, it should be someone without a conflict of interest, as you have demonstrated that those associated with the company are incapable of maintaining the neutral point of view which is required for a Wikipedia article. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It's commendable that you want an unbiased individual to edit the page and ensure that the tone is appropriate for an encyclopedia, though as the editor above notes, it seems problems persist. A better approach might be to contribute suggested edits (especially reliable sources) on the article's talk page, and ask uninvolved editors to consider them and, if they deem it appropriate, to add that information to the page. I hope this is helpful. Keihatsu ^talk 23:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jessiepgoldberg. In addition to the good advice you've received above, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia's "Plain and simple conflict of interest guide". In particular, you should probably take a close look at the section titled "Steps for engagement". Also, I just would like to mention that your statement We are having an unbiased individual edit our company page and want to ensure it is entirely neutral so we avoid it being removed. could be easily seen as being at least an apparent or potential conflict of interest. A truly "unbiased" editor, in my opinion, would tend to be somebody with no connection to your company at all; Someone who is simply here to contribute to the building of the encyclopedia by trying to improve articles in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines without receiving any feedback at all from your company.

Simply put, having someone else do the editing does not automatically mean that there is no conflict of interest. In fact, it might be seen by other editors as "evidence" that the motivation for editing is actually biased and non-neutral. Moreover, if you are paying this person to do this editing, then they would have a financial conflict of interest. For what it's worth, having a conflict of interest does not mean that you or your "agent" cannot ever edit your company's article; It does mean, however, that great care needs to be taken when editing to ensure that relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines are followed and problems with other editors are avoided. Your company may indeed be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, but having a Wikipedia article does not mean that your company owns said article. Having a Wikipedia article written about your company may seem great, but it can turn out to be a mixed blessing. This is something that can be difficult to understand for companies, etc. which want Wikipedia articles written about them, but which are not too familiar with how Wikipedia works. Anyway, I apologize if all this sounds a little preachy. I'm not trying to discourage you from participating in Wikipedia. Good luck. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC); edited by Marchjuly 06:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC) (Edited post to add missing "but")

Hello Jessiepgoldberg. Your original comment is a bit strange since your account made 18 highly promotional edits to the article in recent days. When you speak as "we", that hints at the possibility that more than one person is using your account. This is strictly forbidden and it is mandatory that one account be used by one person only. In addition to the advice given above, please familiarize yourself with the neutral point of view and be aware that the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what reliable and independent sources say about the company, not what your company says about itself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

undo and restore on user contributions

Hello, I want to know what the undo and restore button mean? The only time I ever use the undo and restore button is when I go to the Wikidata page.Studentcollege (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back Studentcollege. Are you asking about the “undo” and “restore this version” links on difference pages like this? If so, “undo” attempts to undo the changes between the two versions if later changes do not interfere. “restore this version” unconditionally restores the selected version, discarding all later changes. —teb728 t c 06:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated.Studentcollege (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Current

What is current in user contribution section? I have fixed some error and got the points from Wikipedia but in some articles it is showing me current. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyfta (talk • contribs) 07:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Ashleyfta. Current in your contributions means you have the most recent edit to the page. The lack of current means that someone has edited the page after you. —teb728 t c 07:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I am new to Wikipedia and learning. I need these types of helps in future also.Ashleyfta (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with my citations?

Having read and reread the standards for citations, I contend my citations meet the standards. Yet, my article has been rejected three times over citations. Quote from Wikipedia on citations: Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves Shortcut:

WP:SELFSOURCE

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.

It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).

It does not involve claims about events not directly re lated to the subject.

There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.

The article is not based primarily on such sources.

Every paragraph on the article "Von Lombard" is sourced. Mostly from third party, independent sources. Only a few from self-published sources but who better knows the subject than self? If a person's own published testimony is rejected, then we could have no courtroom witnesses. Please advise. Many thanks.Crimsontidealabama (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Crimsontidealabama, and welcome to the Teahouse. The first time the article (Draft:Von Lombard) was rejected was because of the references, but the next time was for a different reason - the information provided did not show that the subject (Von Lombard) meets Wikipedia's standard for being notable. These two concepts are related - one of the purposes of the references is to show that the subject has received extensive, independent coverage in reliable sources. The references still need a lot of work, for example the same web site (www.vonlombard.com) is referenced at least 4 times with different descriptions so they look like different references if you don't look closely. But more importantly, read the criteria for Notability and make sure you address those. The reviewers have offered to field specific questions as well.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Helpppppppp

Hi I was wondering if you could help me write my first article. I have no idea how to do it. Or if you can write it? Its about my father which is a famous singer, has had a TV show for decades, is an actor, and also has a youtube video which has gone viral? I can provide all the info needed...or if you can just help me which writting a basic article I would greatly appreciate it — Preceding unsigned comment added by HELGALOANS (talk • contribs) 09:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, HELGALOANS, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's great that you want to help us develop Wikipedia, and I suggest you read your first article, and perhaps work through The Wikipedia Adventure if you haven't done much editing. But, working on an article about your father is probably not a good place to start. The problem is that you have a conflict of interest, which may make it difficult for you to write in a sufficiently neutral way. If you do decide to go ahead with it, I recommend you read all the links I've given, and then use the article wizard, so that you create the article in draft: space, and then submit it for review by others. If you do try, some things you need to bear in mind are

The subject needs to be notable, in Wikipedia's special sense - that doesn't depend on being well known, or having made a video, but on there being substantial published articles about him in reliable sources (such as major newspapers), written by people unconnected with him.
In fact, every single piece of information in the article needs to come from a published source; and most of it from sources with no connection to him: and the sources must be referenced, statement by statement. If you know something about him, but it hasn't been published, don't put it in the article. If you want to put anything even the slightest bit evaluative (such as "famous", or "influential" or "original"), and you can't find an independent published sources that says this, don't put it in the article. If you want to write anything that belongs in a promotional source (such as his own website) but not in an encyclopaedia: don't.
If there has been material widely published which is critical of him, this should go in the article, even if you might prefer it didn't.

Do you see why it might be hard for you, being so close, to write an acceptable article? That's why I suggest you start with something else. But however you decide to continue, I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Company Page, Working on Resolution

Thank you for your helpful feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessiepgoldberg (talk • contribs) 13:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Article may or may not be contradicting itself

In this article, 1563 Act For the Relief of the Poor, the wording '1562 Act' is immediately used. I cannot tell if this is a mere typo or the article contradicting its title as the 2 references are not websites. On Tudor Poor Laws, towards the end, this is referred to as the 1563 act with a wikilink but I cannot tell for sure if this was actually the 1562 Act. Rubbish computer (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: In the section Tudor Poor Laws#References, on Reference 1, a Poor Law Act is mentioned in 1562, not 1563, adding to the confusion. Rubbish computer (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The best place to ask questions in on the article talk pages, Talk:1563 Act For the Relief of the Poor and Talk: Tudor Poor Laws. The first sentence of the article on the 1563 act has been changed to 1563, so that 1562 may have been a typo. The 1563 act article does not have a talk page yet, but creating a new section will create the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Rubbish computer (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

help how can i save article from deletion ?

i wrote the article mutiny of colours and now i see error (This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.) can any one help me to solve the problem ? (Mahan khomamipor (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Perhaps you mean Mutiny of Colours? The discussion regarding deletion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutiny of Colours. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mahan khomamipor. I have argued at the deletion discussion to keep the article, because I think the references in the "Further reading" section do establish notability. The other problems mentioned in that nomination are real, though. Ideally, you shouldn't be writing the article at all, because of your conflict of interest. But the article should contain only information in those sources, and the information should be referenced inline (see referencing for beginners). --ColinFine (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

What was the "Bogdanov affair"

It mentioned that all involved users were blocked. Why? The article is confusing. RedPanda25 (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

See Bogdanov_affair#Spread_of_the_dispute. I'm assuming you mean blocked at Wikipedia. The users who were blocked were largely blocked for using Wikipedia for advocacy of their own personal point of view and for maintaining an army of illegitimate accounts for the purpose of maintaining that point of view and masking their own identity. --Jayron 32 01:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I get it now. RedPanda25 20:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Extensive copyright problem

I have recently edited some of the articles in Category:Upazilas of Bangladesh and its subcategories (these can also be found at Upazilas of Bangladesh#List of Upazilas). Many of these articles appear to be lists of staistics which are very similar, such as the one shown in the external link of Matlab Dakshin Upazila. Although on this particular article copying has not occurred, many articles on Upazilas of Bangladesh appear to have been copied and pasted from a site called Banglapedia. The information on this website is copyrighted from 2012, meaning that this is a direct copyright violation on a large scale UNLESS the website has specifically given permission for this. THIS IS NOT AN APRIL FOOLS JOKE. Rubbish computer (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Rubbish computer. Can you list a few articles where you see this apparent copying? I spot checked five just now against their entries at Banglapedia and didn't find any copying but there are many articles in the category so I may have just un-lucked out.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I will find some shortly. Rubbish computer (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Alamdanga Upazila may be one but I can't immediately tell. Companiganj Upazila, Sylhet appears to contain this content in the section Demographics. Sreemngal Upazila in at least one section. Sorry I misspelled that and I don't know the correct name.Jhenaigati Upazila#Demographics and the section 'Administrative' may be copied. On Bheramara Upazila#Geography the section has been copied and pasted from elsewhere in such a way that copyright violation is obvious. Dewanganj Upazila appears to largely have been copied. I didn't write this all at once but came back to it later on. Rubbish computer (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey RC. This is going to be a huge pain to clean up! Sometimes it's easy: a whole block of text is lifted, and you can reconstruct exactly when and there's no intervening edits changing it. I just looked at Sreemangal Upazila and it's all over the place. A sentence lifted here, and another there, and pasted in between original content, but modified slightly and so on; separating the wheat from the chaff is the problem. Anyway, I've listed this as a copyright violation by adding to the page {{subst:copyvio|url=http://www.banglapedia.org/HT/S_0601.htm}} and then posting to today's copyright violation page (the instructions for doing that are in the template when you place it). You can emulate that for others. I have done a lot of copyright cleaning in the past – taking on doing the cleaning myself rather than tagging, but I'm just not up for this right now. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Embed photo

Hello- I've found a photo on flickr- it shows the icons for BY-NC so I think I can use this in the infobox of a person. I see there is an expected syntax of "

Alt

Caption

". Where do I look in Flickr for the "Name"? Am I understanding the correct usage of the syntax? How does the Wikipedia page know to go to Flickr to find the image? Thank you.Rkatsuno (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, @Rkatsuno:, but "CC-BY-NC" is not compatible with Wikipedia's license, so you cannot upload it here. Wikipedia's license is CC-BY-SA. The difference is that "NC" is only licensed for non-commercial use. Wikipedia itself is non-commercial, but requires that its material be allowed for commercial use so downstream users can use it as such. Being CC-BY-NC makes it ineligible for use at Wikipedia. You'd need a compatible license to use it. Wikipedia:File copyright tags contains a list of allowable licenses, while Wikipedia:Image use policy contains the full policy for using images at Wikipedia. Of note, the policy states "Note that images that are licensed for use only on Wikipedia, or only for non-commercial or educational use...are unsuitable" Sorry! --Jayron 32 19:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow- super helpful. She's given me a photo and I checked out Flickr, I'll show her how to upload CY-SA. Now the original question- how to enter the correct syntax so it can be found at Flickr? Thank you.Rkatsuno (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Rkatsuno. If I'm understanding your question, Wikipedia does not hotlink to images. Instead, you would have to download the file to your computer and then upload it. However, if an image bears a suitably free and compatible license, it should actually be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). Once uploaded there, it can be used natively here, using our normal image syntax, or inside an infobox wrapper. By the way, just be aware of License laundering, of which "flickr washing" is a very common variety, In short, you can't always trust that the person who purports to hold the copyright license, and who provides a free license at Flickr or elsewhere, is not actually infringing on the real owner of the copyright. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, very helpful, thank you. The main thing is she needs to know that this photo of herself that's going into her infobox will become available to anyone to use, copy, modify, and sell without notifying her, and with that permission from her I can upload it into Wikimedia Commons or have her do it and that will result in an image "name" that I can then refer to on her Wikipedia page. Can you kindly confirm I've got the concept and the steps? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkatsuno (talk • contribs) 00:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

How to have two titles refer to the same page

Hi. I am creating a page for women in global environmental change and one for women in climate change which have much the same content. Can I have it point to the same page I have created if people enter one or the other of the search terms? Or do I need to create a completely separate page? I have already submitted 'Women in Global Environmental Change' for review. ThanksDianaliverman (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes a redirect is something you should do. There's an article about redirects here, but in your case, to redirect "women in climate change" to "women in global environmental change", the text for the "women in climate change" page would be #REDIRECT Women in Global Environmental Change. Also, on Wikipedia, redirects are always used instead of duplicating articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better as a "List of..." article? In any event it requires a lot of clean up.--ukexpat (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

question

Hi i decided not to use admin's time and post this here. Is there any chance i'll be given rollback rights? Thank You A.A.Wasif | Talk 16:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you want to use them for? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The questioner has perhaps forgotten the advice which he was given not many weeks ago]: "I am therefore formally requesting that you cease asking for or otherwise applying for any advanced permisssions for the next three months at a minimum." 19 days does not equal 3 months. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: & @Skamecrazy123: What are rollback rights? (Sorry I was just looking through the questions trying to learn something) BluJay (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@BluJay: You can often learn about something by entering it in the search box after wp: like wp:rollback. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Okay, Thanks for the advice! BluJay (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest; need someone else to edit

Hi, I work with the manager of a comedian who has a Wiki page, and I need someone else to edit as I've been told my conflict of interest prevents me from doing so properly. Who do I need to give my suggested edits to, or what exact page do I need to be on? Justinsilvera (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Justinsilvera, welcome to the teahouse and thank you for declaring your conflict of interest.
Rather than me repeat the instructions, could you please see Template:Request edit/Instructions (click the blue link to be taken there) If, having read the instructions, you have any questions, please come back here and ask again. - Arjayay (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi @U:Justinsilvera: welcome the the Teahouse, I believe you are a manager of a comedian but do you have reliable sources to prove the changes you are giving because Wikipedia believes in Reliable sources. If you have reliable sources, feel free to take me as your reviewer. Komchi^✉_☆ 06:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference presentation

Hello Teahouse! Should reference titles have quotation marks? (These: "*Words*") I have seen some like this: "*Title of reference*" and some like this: *Title of reference*. When I title references I don't use quote marks. Thanks, --DangerousJXD (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi DangerousJXD. The title should usually either have quotation marks or italics depending on how it would be written elsewhere per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Titles. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles and Wikipedia:Citing sources#What information to include. If you use a citation template then it should automatically format the title correctly. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Why did a newline screw up a template?

I'm working on a new template {{iswas}} for using when a date could either be present or past. I ran into an issue that confused me for a while. As you can see at [1] removing a single newline fixed the issue that it was adding weird markup including pre and p html tags to my template when transcluded. Why would it do that? Jerodlycett (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jerodlycett, welcome to the Teahouse. I guess you ended up with a line starting with a leading space after the template use. Leading spaces cause special formatting:

This line starts with a space.

PrimeHunter (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see any leading space, and it was driving me nuts. It still works fine anyway. Now I'm working on documentation. Hopefully this template will see some use. Jerodlycett (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Redirect problem

My page History of the United States National Security Council during the Nixon Administration isn't linked to the title I have written in it which is definitely an article title. Rubbish computer (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rubbish computer, the article has an en dash instead of a hyphen in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes. I fixed the redirect.[2] I use copy and paste to ensure links will work. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Rubbish computer (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Rubbish computer. Between this thread and a few others you've posted where the problem you ran into was not reproducing the title exactly as in the original, I suspect that you are not copying and pasting the title but retyping it manually. Though the article on copy and paste was linked above, here's a summary (some of which I copied and pasted from prior posts). Highlight text you want to copy by placing your cursor at the beginning of it, clicking with your mouse and running the cursor to the end of it (if a single word, just click twice on it). You can copy that highlighted text and paste it through menus or with commands. For the former, after highlighting, go to (typically) file in your browser's menu, select copy, and then go to the place where you want to paste it, click there, and then choose paste in the same way from the file menu tab dropdown. Or, do the same highlighting, but then right click on what you highlighted and you will probably get a menu right there with copy and paste options. I personally find it much faster to use commands though. For that, after highlighting, hit Ctrl+c (on a PC); ⌘ Cmd+c (on a Mac), and then to paste, Ctrl+v (on a PC); ⌘ Cmd+v (on a Mac). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of an image again

Hello,

I uploaded a Barnstar(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Comic_Barnstar_Hires.png) without reading a license of a photo I used and I want to delete it. Sorry for the screw up again. Thank you! Komchi^✉_☆ 12:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Komchi welcome to the Teahouse. It's not clear what you want. Do you want an administrator to remove the image you uploaded? If you beilieve you made a mistake don't worry we've all been there. You just have to learn from your mistakes and make sure you won't keep making the same mistake again. Cheers--Chamith (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@ChamithN:I want it to be deleted as I have made a better one with proper license.Komchi^✉_☆ 13:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Komchi:You can see how you request a deletion at the Commons here: c:Help:Nominate for deletion. w.carter-Talk 13:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@W.carter:Thank You again! Komchi^✉_☆ 13:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Submitting First Article

I'm very new to this, and I attempted my first article which has been declined twice since I didn't format it right. I've resubmitted it again, and I feel like I have everything fixed. I haven't seen a response to the submission for about 11 days. I'm wondering what can I do to move this along? Help please!

SirChristoph84 (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, SirChristoph84 and welcome to the Teahouse. I cleaned up the formatting of your article (Draft:Minneapolis Beard and Moustache Club) a little, and your references have certainly improved. However, the latest reviewer did not reject it because of the formatting; the issue was whether there was enough evidence to demonstrate that the MBMC is "notable" in Wikipedia's special meaning of the word (the first reviewer also made mention of this). Basically, this means the article has to show that there has been extensive, independent coverage of the MBMC in reliable sources. I expect the best way to show this is to expand the sections on "MBMC in The Media" and "MBMC Community Involvement" - instead of just listing the media coverage, write up a summary of the pertinent points and why they are relevant. For example, the first media reference is a good one, so why not put in some text such as "The Star Tribune highlighted the club's activities in its article about how facial hair is returning to fashion" (or something - use your own words) to show why you have included the reference. Then also describe and add references to support the "MBMC Community Involvement". Also, there are far too many External links, with no indication of their significance: it makes me wonder if they would be better worked into the article as references. --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Gronk Oz very much for your input and cleaning up the formatting. What you are saying makes sense, so thank your for clarifying more. I thought from one of the last responses that all links needed to be in "external links", but I can see how making them a reference would tie them in better to the reading of the whole article. Thanks again for your guidance. I'll make those changes, but how would I resubmit for review when it's already in review?

SirChristoph84 (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I want to write an article on "Ontoanalysis," a form of existential analysis

I want to write an article on "Ontoanalysis," a form of existential analysis that I studied with a professor at Binghamton University in New York, USA. How do I get started?173.173.108.35 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You can go to this link WP:WIZARD. Be sure to read in instructions and include sources. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

User Page

I have created simple article on my user page User:Suniltx/sandbox but its been declined. So Could you please guide me what kind of information will be accepted. Sunil (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Suniltx. You were intending that as a Wikipedia:user page-- not an article, right? Assuming that to be the case, I moved it to User:Suniltx, which is the proper place for your user page. The reason it was not accepted was that the reviewer took it as a draft article. —teb728 t c 20:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Quick Question

Hello,

I recently created the Wine Barnstar Hires.PNG, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wine_Barnstar_Hires.PNG. This is the 2.0 version of the Original Wine Barnstar, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Barnstar-wine.png. Someone please add this to the table Barnstar(or can I add it myself) because it says to add to you personal award page.

Thank You.

Wine Barnstar 2.0 version

Komchi^✉_☆ 05:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Komchi. Thank you for wanting to contribute to the awards section. Pardon me for saying so, it may be since it is Easter, but to me that barnstar looks a bit religious with the chalice and all. An ordinary glass might be a better representative for wine tasting and wine related subjects. Best, w.carter-Talk 09:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I will try my best to improve. Komchi^✉_☆ 09:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. When you edit on the Wikipedia, you have to take into account that people from different cultures and religions may see things differently than you do. To western Christians, a golden chalice is a very strong symbol in a way it may not be in India where you live. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 09:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Today was certainly an appropriate day to ask this question. I should mention that I personally don't drink and would prefer not to receive a barnstar with any connection to alcohol. By the way, a lot of western Christians do not observe the Eucharist with actual alcohol. My local church is one of them. In the ritual, my current pastor says "fruit of the vine" rather than wine. Our grape juice is not fermented.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

New topic for article

hello I want to write an article on - Google keyword planner, can some one please confirm is that ok. while i have done research and found that there is no article on this subject. please confirm thanks 122.162.119.78

@122.162.119.78: hello and welcome to The Teahouse. The topic is fine provided you can find multiple independent reliable sources such as books, magazines and newspapers, whose publishers have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, and who are also independent of the topic being covered, with extensive coverage of the topic.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

And remember 122.162.119.78, that the article should be based entirely on published sources. If you think of putting some information in the article and you can't find a published source for it, don't put it in. --ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Extensive copyright problem (not April Fool)

I have recently edited some of the articles in Category:Upazilas of Bangladesh, and its subcategories (these can also be found at Upazilas of Bangladesh#List of Upazilas. Many of these articles appear to be lists of statistics which are very similar, such as the one shown in the external link to Matlab Dakshin Upazila. Although on this particular article no copying has occurred, many articles on Upazilas in Bangladesh appear to have been copied and pasted from a website called Banglapedia. The information on this website is copyrighted from 2012, meaning that this is a direct copyright violation on a large scale. This is NOT an April Fools joke.Rubbish computer (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

See above (it will be below when archived, but then that link won't work).— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Referencing people

I am wondering how to cite sources directly from the individual themselves. I am working on developing an article on David C. Rubin for a psychology course, and was having no luck in finding his early life anywhere. So my group has been in contact with Rubin throughout the project and asked him about his early life and he gave us the information...how do I cite this? thank you.

Kmemcc22 (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kmemcc22. I'm afraid the answer is, you don't. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is Verifiability, and that means that if information hasn't been published in a reliable source, it doesn't go into a Wikipedia article. This in turn is what is behind the principle of notability (in Wikipedia's special sense): if not enough information has been published (in independent reliable sources) to ground an article, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article, and you will not be allowed to attempt it. If there are sources about Rubin, there may be an article on him; but if none of them say anything about his early life, then the article must not do so. --ColinFine (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Kmemcc22 welcome to The Teahouse. There is another way. If you can find a reputable publisher of a journal or newspaper who is willing to print your research, that can be used as a reliable source.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Article titles in italics

How do I rename article titles to show them in italics? CabbagePotato (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CabbagePotato. You do not actually change the title of the article. Instead, you change how the title is displayed, by adding some wikicode to the beginning of the article, either a "magic word" or a template. Please read WP:ITALICTITLE to see the various options. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but are you saying that I add the template using the "Edit" tab on the article page? CabbagePotato (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I figured it out. Thank you! CabbagePotato (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It's automatic for movies and TV series that use the correct infobox. This is what I was told.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Also for ships and species, and probably others too. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 21:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes are optional. Some experienced editors hate them while others love them. Personally, I am neutral regarding infoboxes, but one thing that I am sure of is that arguing about infoboxes is counterproductive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Temporary Page

Hello,

Recently I have recreated an article, User talk:SiloniSam/Carborundum Universal Ltd/Temp, which was previously deleted for copyvio issue. What next and what else I supposed to do now to get my article to the main space. SiloniSam (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)SiloniSam

Hello, SiloniSam: when you think it is ready, submit it for review by editing it to put {{subst:submit}} at the top. On a quick look, I think it is probably acceptable, but it could do with still more references: there are several unreferenced statements in the text. The references could also be given a little more information (eg title, author, date). See referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank u ColinFine, I will work on that — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiloniSam (talk • contribs) 04:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 326

Contents

help improving an article

Reviewing a rough draft?

Thurlaston Brook Article - i cannot reference this as i wrote it entirely from my own survey

Emacs Editing

Not clear how to add needed source info on an image

Userboxes on right of userpage

Newspaper as a reference

Trouble signing in

Company Page

undo and restore on user contributions

Current

What is wrong with my citations?

Helpppppppp

Company Page, Working on Resolution

Article may or may not be contradicting itself

help how can i save article from deletion ?

What was the "Bogdanov affair"

Extensive copyright problem

Embed photo

How to have two titles refer to the same page

question

Conflict of interest; need someone else to edit

Reference presentation

Why did a newline screw up a template?

Redirect problem

Deletion of an image again

Submitting First Article

I want to write an article on "Ontoanalysis," a form of existential analysis

Archives

User Page

Quick Question

New topic for article

Extensive copyright problem (not April Fool)

Referencing people

Article titles in italics

Temporary Page