Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 727

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 720 ← Archive 725 Archive 726 Archive 727 Archive 728 Archive 729 Archive 730

Newbie Question: What is the scope of vandalism

I just got accosted today of being a vandal and I'm at an utter loss and feel a little bullied. Earlier today, I edited a page of a town with details pertaining a movie recently released.

It is public knowledge that on location shots were taken in this town. Rhetoric from the movie itself, describe the area surrounding this town - imagery in the movie itself can be seen in the movie. My carefully worded edit did not claim the town as the location in the movie but was meant to draw inferences. My aim was not to offend or incite a trend but to add more to the sorely lacking rhetoric about the town to the rest of the world.

Does this make me a vandal? Or that I am purporting a hoax or nonsensical? Have I broken the wiki community guidelines? While one article was already reverted, I've paused completing the edits (production shots) I was making to the second one, here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanungu

I am also from that particular area, which is why my reaction to being called a vandal is a little adverse.

128.237.168.140 (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Where were you called a vandal? I see at Kanugu MizPage claimed that Kanugu can be regarded as Wakanda (which goes against our policies on stating one's own opinions as fact, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR) and was not reverted. You're not logged in to your account, so I have to guess that you're MizPage. MizPage was reverted at at the Kanugu District article, with no comment whatsoever. It is beyond hyperbole to call that "accosted today of being a vandal." Try assuming good faith from other users. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello :Ian.thomson No, it's not hyperbole. The comment was sent to my own personal messaging (hence the feeling bullied) - screenshots can be provided if I can figure out away to upload them. However that aside, basing on the articles that you have linked - the only instance in which I can publish what I did is if it has already been published else where and then cite it on the page. And to the root of my original question, this isn't vandalism 128.237.168.140 (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

To date, there are no edits to MizPage's talk page, nor that of the IP address you are using. Furthermore, the MizPage account does not have email enabled, and no one has tripped [{WP:FILTER|edit filters]] on any of the article's mentioned here. Please post a link to where you got a message accusing you of vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@MizPage: You are quite right in that your edits could not be construed by a reasonable person to be vandalism, as Wikipedia defines it. They do look to have been made in good faith, though were perhaps ill-judged. I probably don't need to labour the point that Wikipedia has no place for personal opinions, rumour, facts-everyone-knows-but-cant-prove, and so on. Had you cited a reliable independent source which talked about using the area as a film set, then your edit would almost certainly have remained. (I might have moved it lower down the page, however.) Without any supporting evidence comments like these simply have to go, as Wikipedia is no place for the kind of gentle inference you made. Rest assured that no competent editor would have genuinely accused you of vandalism from just one edit like that. (Though, to be honest, there have been times when I've been checking and reverting constant vandalism across hundreds of pages, and for hours on end, and have once or twice jumped to the wrong conclusion made by an innocent editor. And I've had it happen to me, and it's not nice when it's unfair. That's when it's time to revert and say sorry, of course, although that kind of "templating" doesn't seem to have occurred here with the edits you refer to here. All very odd. Kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Nick Moyes Thank you for your explanation, I think in all honesty my perception of Wikipedia was different from what it actually is. But there is nothing like correction in what ever form it comes.

Ian.Thomson Here is the link. I failed to use the inbuilt upload feature so I used Drive instead. Because I would not use the language in my first comment out of hyperbole as you noted. In the same vein, I too assume good faith and as such came here for clarification.

Lol! Also I'm logged in but alas, another an IP instead :) 74.109.251.102 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 
Nice Cup of Tea?
OK - thanks for that. Well, until 5 minutes ago I wasn't aware there were ways of accessing Wikipedia on WhatsApp. And I cant quite make out who's engaging with who in that screenshot. But it all sounds quite light-hearted banter, unless I've misread something. Presumably you are only receiving messages from people you actually know via personal messaging? If so, I'm confused why you didn't take it up with them, rather than coming here. Anyway, perhaps I could make everyone here a nice cup of tea and we needn't be too concerned over precise interpretation -it's so easy to misunderstand meaning in the typed word. Just pinging @Ian.Thomson: as I think you didn't quite get the syntax right to automatically notify him of your last post. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not deliver messages through Whatsapp. Any connection between Whatsapp and Wikipedia is unofficial and through a third-party. You received a message from someone outside of this site, and we have no indication that that's really someone from this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Article not visible in search engines

Hi I recently created a bio article for an artist by name Mojo Perry in sandbox and when it seem good I later moved it to article. But it seems not to be indexed by wiki search or Google. Can someone help me out.? I have done more than 10 edits and Its been years since I open my wiki Account so the 4 days too can't be the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinferevans (talk • contribs) 20:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The article was probably awaiting being patrolled by an experienced editor, Kinferevans. From what I saw of it before it was deleted, it was highly promotional and based pretty much entirely on material from the subject's website. Wikipedia articles should be largely based on what independent sources say about a topic, and should be written in a neutral tone. Please see Wikipedia:Your first article for some good advice. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
thanks for the heads up Kinferevans (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Question I want to ask.

Hello! I have a question I want to ask. Why doesn't the United States Census Bureau conduct population estimates for unincorporated communities in the United States? This excludes Census-designated places. Coloradodude19 (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Coloradodude19. The Teahouse is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. For general knowledge questions, please try the Reference desks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Thank you for letting me know. I understand this, but I will ask my question at the reference desk. Cheers! Coloradodude19 (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

How do I replace a logo on the summary box?

Thank you for your assistance with this request, as this pertains to the page for Glendale community College, California. Chamroon (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Chamroon. When I look at the logo appearing in Glendale Community College (California), and then look at the logo on the college's website, they appear to be identical. Can you please explain why the logo should be replaced? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

how do i edit something about me

There is a wikipedia page on me and my birthdate is wrong. How do I correct it? 2600:1702:850:8340:6C4E:EDB5:356E:7A7C (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP user and welcome to the Teahouse. It would help to know who you are, but in any event you should post on the talk page associated with the article about you, there is a Talk tab at the top of the article which will take you there. You will need to offer a source for your birthdate as we cannot simply take your word for it, as information here must be verifiable. You should review the autobiography policy at WP:AUTO for more information. You may also want to register a username and then confirm your identity by emailing the address at the end of the paragraph here, to ensure you are not impersonated by someone else. 331dot (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
It appears IP went and edited the article Yari Allnutt after asking here. I checked their change and it is correct by the official sources, so the DOB change they made is fine. NZFC(talk) 01:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

page nominated for deletion

so i was working on my first page for a firm called prestige economics and i think i messed up bad. i had an initial draft that i submitted for review, it got rejected. i then redrafted and submitted it for review again, but i thought the article was fine this time, so i moved it to article space on my own. and now it's nominated for deletion. please help me out and let me know how i can make this better.

i don't wnt my first article to get deleted. please help. :(SMJ 03:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah312x (talk • contribs)

Hello Sarah312x and welcome (back, I think) to the Teahouse.
One thing you need to understand about Wikipedia is that your individual contributions are owned by you, but the pages you create belong to Wikipedia at large, in the sense that other editors are free to comment on, add or subtract content from, and judge whether they meet our policies. Your should not have moved Prestige Economics back to Draft:Prestige Economics once other editors made changes. I expect the article will probably be deleted once the AfD discussion has run its course.
Creating a new article from scratch is a pretty hard thing to do on Wikipedia. Based on this article and some of your other contributions, you should probably study up on what WP considers reliable sources and the somewhat peculiar way WP interprets the concept of notability. The Articles for Creation process provides an opportunity for new editors to get their efforts reviewed and the feedback should be taken seriously. Use the process for your next effort and don't short-circuit it.
Most Teahouse helpers will tell you that you need to spend a while improving other articles and learning the ropes before attempting to create a new article from scratch. If you haven't already gone over it, the your first article instructions should help you. The Teahouse is here to help! — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Sarah312x: Oops. Misspelling username is not good form, sorry. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarah312x: I see that very little of Draft:Prestige Economics is about the company. It's almost all about things its president and employees have said. Such content should all be removed. If an employee corrected predicted a recession, that's irrelevant for Wikipedia. If an independent source, such as a respected journalist or a senior politician, praised the company or its employee for successfully predicting a recession (or criticised them for getting it wrong), that might be worthy of a place in the article. Maproom (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Can any of you help me improve it? SMJ 07:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah312x (talk • contribs)
Some possibilities, but not holding out much help.
  1. figure out what subject you are writing about - Prestige Economics or Jason Schenker
  2. establish notability by finding several high-quality, independent, reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject
  3. rewrite the draft from scratch using only information from the sources, carefully citing each statement of fact
  4. avoid promotional language, avoid writing a one-sided view of the subject
I don't see that the collective opinion at the AfD discussion was that PE or Schenker were definitely not notable, just that the draft did not adequately demonstrate notability. So whether there can be an article or not depends on finding those independent sources. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Is this an okay way to start it? I'm trying to re-draft the article. :( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Prestige_Economics SMJ 05:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

how to edit jane fonda article

I have edited wikipedia articles before but can't find a way to correct a word spelling i.e. change "an" to "a" in the section on Native Americans.49.176.15.231 (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. I corrected that typographical error for you. Jane Fonda is semi-protected until May because of persistent vandalism. This prevents unregistered and inexperienced editors from making changes to any such article. You could have made an edit request at Talk: Jane Fonda. Please consider setting up a Wikipedia account. After you have made at least ten edits and at least four days have passed, you will then be able to edit semi-protected articles yourself. Thank you for pointing out the typo. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Need a proofreader

Hello Teahouse helpers,

Newbie here.

I translated a page from English to Spanish and would like a proofreader. How do I find one? This is my first time collaborating with Wikipedia. Could anyone guide me through the process of translating articles and crediting the original article?

Thank you

Egalanti Egalanti (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Egalanti Your edit history shows only two edits which are to this page, can you tell us what the article is called? If you haven't created it yet I would recommend the WP:AFC process where it can be proof read by reviewers before being accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The OP is presumably referring to es:Curling en las Olimpiadas de Invierno 2018 – Torneo femenino, though it looks from es:Anexo:Curling en los Juegos Olímpicos de Pyeongchang 2018 that they are expecting the article to be entitled es:Anexo:Curling en los Juegos Olímpicos de Pyeongchang 2018 – Femenino, and presumably they would expect it to be of similar format to es:Anexo:Curling en los Juegos Olímpicos de Pyeongchang 2018 – Masculino. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The original name of the article is "Curling at the 2018 Winter Olympics – Women's tournament" (in English) The translated title is "Curling en las Olimpiadas de Invierno 2018 – Torneo femenino"

I hit publish thinking it would save the translation so I could review it and make changes to it later. Will all Wikipedia readers have access to it or does the translation need to be approved first?

Thank you! Egalanti (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, we already have an article called Curling at the 2018 Winter Olympics – Women's tournament but you have made no edits to it unless you were logged out? Theroadislong (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Egalanti: The OP is looking for a proofreader for his Spanish version, not the English one. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you...I must learn to read properly. Theroadislong (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
It may be worth looking at Category:Translators en-es. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps it hasn't been published for everyone to see. I didn't create the article, I merely translated it and was hoping to find a proofreader. I will search a bit more and see if I can find one. Thank you for taking the time to help me, I really appreciate it
Egalanti (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it has been published for everyone to see. In the English Wikipedia we would recommend that new editors shouldn't try to publish an article directly to mainspace, but instead should produce a draft for review through the Article for creation process. The guidance is at WP:Your first article. As I am not a Spanish speaker I will leave you to read the equivalent page at es:Ayuda:Tu primer artículo to see whether it gives similar advice. Advice on translating from English to a foreign Wikipedia is at WP:Translate us. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you David for the suggested page. I will look for a proofreader there.Egalanti (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Egalanti, the word "publish" gets used in different senses. Most people think of "publishing" as meaning making a page part of Wikipedia's main set of articles: so you can develop a draft somewhere out of sight, and then 'publish' it. But in fact, every page on Wikipedia is visible to the entire world: articles, drafts, user pages, everything. As soon as you have saved it, it is visible, and so in a different sense "published" I assume that is why the Foundation recently changed "Save" to "Publish", to make this clear; but it has caused confusion instead. Pages outside the main article space are not usually indexed by search engines, and so will not come to people's attention casually, and in that sense, they haven't been published; but they are still visible if somebody goes looking for them. --ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you ColinFine for your message. I was under the impression that an article needed to be approved before it went public for the entire world to see. I have been reading the rules but may have missed that one. It makes sense... I will be more careful with the next one. In the meantime, I will look for a proofreader who can make the necessary changes so the article reads well in SpanishEgalanti (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Spel

Is there a spel(Game) in Wien Universitat?~

"not ANI" should be "not ANY" ~

-!

I appreciate that a title starts with a capital letter(character).

BDvEngers (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, BDvEngers. Which article are you talking about? I do not find ANI in University of Vienna. Sam Sailor 12:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Today is my first day.

Hello teahouse hosts, lots of love from me, today i joined wikipedia , and i have ' 0 ' idea about anything. I want to know wiki easily, in easy way than reading all the guidelines or other pages. Now i want to know what is IP address and its importance ? Please explain simply. Thank you. STC (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse, STC. What a nice user page you have already created, congratulations! I have left you a welcome message, a TW invitation, and an invitation for WP:INDIA. We have an article about IP addresses that may answer your questions. Sam Sailor 12:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you respected sir Sam Sailor, i belive on humanity. And i think the differences between a university prof. or a beggar are in two points -

  • Informational : the information they have in brain.
  • Behaviour: who represents good behaviour.

Otherwise we all are same. Human. Being an Indian i firstly noted that there need some change in behaviour of a number of editors, not the host. There should be a place where you, the hosts, should teache them how to speak. However, your words and your help in my talkpage gave me ways to go long. Thank you. Have a nice day. And please save the climate. I choose this user name, because whenever i will be visible, people will get a message to save climate. STC (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Technical problem

Would someone be so kind as to look at this edit of mine and tell me why my change does not show up in Preview or Saved: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlottesville,_Virginia&diff=826869591&oldid=826869051. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your edit to the caption for the second image does show up. Your edit for the next image put the exta words outside the brackets, so it doesn't show up in the caption but instead appears as extra text at the start of the section in which it was placed. All you need to do is move the text inside the brackets with the rest of the caption. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

When do I remove a maintenance tag from an article?

I guess the title says it all. LampGenie01 (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

If you look, for example, at The Ghost of Hui Family which you recently edited, in the box at the top of the article there is a wikilink labelled "Learn how and when to remove these template messages", leading to Help:Maintenance template removal. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Templates again

Hi, I want to edit my user space and create some sort of table containing some of the templates that I find useful. But I don't know how to add them without them being displayed. I only want to show them like this {{ disclamer }}, but without the spaces. Thanks. OnaxisTALK TO ME 20:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I jsut sorted it out :) OnaxisTALK TO ME 21:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Onaxis. I don't know if you know about the template {{tl}}, but that sounds as if you would find it useful. (What I wrote in the previous sentence was {{tl|tl}}, and as you see, it displays as {{tl}} with a link to the template definition). --ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks loads ColinFine! I found it really useful!. OnaxisTALK TO ME 13:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

AR stands for?

I saw a post on FB that states that "AR", as in AR-15, does not stand for Assault Rifle. Is that true?Kent K. Shepard (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

AR is a abbreviation of ArmaLite, the original manufacturer. Also this page is generally for questions about editing Wikipedia. For general questions you might have more luck in the future asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk. GMGtalk 17:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
That's what I thought. The article said it was the last name initials of a couple people. Just wanted to make sure it did NOT stand for assault rifle. Thank you very much.Kent K. Shepard (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me know

I want to make a colourful signature. How would i use colourful words in my signature place ? STC (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Signatures explains how. --Jayron32 17:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

how do i get a wiki page approved for a business company

is it possible to create a wiki page for a business company? if so, what all has to be included? I tried adding a page mentioning its location and the service type but was declined approval. Any help is appreciated. ThanksFtintu (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ftintu. We have thousands of articles about truly notable companies so it is definitely possible. However, it is quite difficult for an inexperienced new editor to successfully write a new article. For example, your draft article is unreferenced. That is not acceptable. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Your first article. That will give you a better understanding of what is required. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Ftintu. I'm afraid that the wording of your question suggests that you may have a (very common) misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. We don't have "pages for" things: what we have is "articles about" things. This might seem a nit-picky difference, but I think it is important. If we ever have an article about your company, it will not belong to the company, the company will have no control over its content, and indeed will be strongly discouraged from editing it directly; hardly any of the content should come from the company, but almost all from what people who have no connection with the company have chosen to publish about the company in reliable sources. It may not be desirable for Wikipedia to have an article on you: see PROUD. --ColinFine (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

How should information to sources be included/referenced

I'm working with a friend to update the Bobby Locke page with details of his World War II record. To support this we have two pieces of information:

We would like to refer to both of these documents in the update to the Bobby Locke page, however neither of the documents has been previously published.

I'm not sure what would be the best way of including these documents so that we can reference them as sources in the update and would appreciate any suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidburdett (talk • contribs) 10:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Davidburdett. Unfortunately, neither of these sources is acceptable to Wikipedia, unless you can get them published by reputable publishers. This also means that if they are the only sources for some information, then you should not put the information into the article.
The problem is that, because Wikipedia may be edited by anybody, you can never be sure that wrong information hasn't been inserted (by mistake, or by somebody who has an axe to grind, or by a vandal); so we require that everything be backed up by published references. They need to be published, because if somebody wants to check the facts in an article next week or next month or next year, they need to be able to get hold of the sources, at least in principle. See Verifiability for more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinFine (talk • contribs) 10:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with your reasoning (though not with the conclusion). The real problem I see is that the documents have not been published by whoever holds the copyright to them, and it would be a copyvio to upload and link to them on a random hosting website. However, if (for instance) the author of the paper published it on the SA defense ministry site, or on their personal website, I would say it is an acceptable secondary source for not-too-much controversial purposes. The problem is "published" rather than "published by a reliable editor" - the author might make a source relatively reliable even if the publisher is not independent. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
This has been overtaken by subsequent comments, Tigraan, but I do want to take issue with what you said. Even if the copyright question is satisfied, uploading a document to a random website does not create a reliable reference, because its provenance is unknown: somebody could have altered it before uploading. I suppose the author putting it on their own website would remove that objection, but it would then have the same status as a blog: if the author is a recognised authority, it could be taken as reliable, but otherwise it could establish only that that author made such and such a claim, nothing more. --ColinFine (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@ColinFine: Well, I would type a long answer, but it has already been made more eloquently before by someone else: It doesn't matter if [a] source is whatsupyourbutthurhurhur.com, looks like a mid '90's AOL user homepage and has a reputation for being run by a schizophrenic nazi child molester. If we have every reason to believe it would report on a particular claim accurately, it can be used for that claim. We do not assume uploaded documents have been tampered with, unless there is any indication to that effect or if they are used in support of controversial claims in which case attribution must be rock solid. For example, we routinely link to preprints of scientific articles on sharing websites even though they could (maybe) differ from the paywalled article version.
Of course, the lack of a proper publication may impact the source's reliability; for instance, it may indicate that it was a draft version, not fully vetted. You also are correct that (when there is a single author and no review) it is pretty much equivalent to a blog post as reliability goes, but that is not an automatic zero. TigraanClick here to contact me 19:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I understand and accept the importance of having references that are published and that copyright is not violated. That said I think there may be a way forward based on the principle, in copyright, of Fair Use in the US and/or Fair Dealing in countries in the Commonwealth of Nations including South Africa.
I think our intended use complies with the principle in Fair Dealing that Copyright shall not be infringed by any fair dealing with a literary or musical work ... for the purposes of criticism or review of that work or of another work ... Provided that ... the source shall be mentioned, as well as the name of the author if it appears on the work. Fair use factors also include the principle that The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
The reason we want to add Bobby Locke's World War II record is because in his book [Bobby Locke on Golf] he states My stay in the Air Force lasted five years and three months, in which time I completed 1,800 hours on single-, twin- and four-engined aircraft. My last twelve months’ service was in the Middle East and Italy in a Liberator Squadron. The documents we want to reference show that this claim is false and, to quote Colonel Graham du Toit, Bobby Locke never flew on any operational mission over a hostile target. By the time he was posted onto an Operational Squadron, the War in Europe had already ended.
I would think our intended use meets the fair dealing/fair use requirement as it is providing a criticism of a work (Bobby Locke's book) as well as meeting other fair use requirements, i.e its use is non-commercial; the referenced documents record facts; the use would not affect the value of the referenced works.
What do you think? DavidB (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Davidburdett. What you propose is clearly not allowed for several reasons already explained, but also because original research is simply not allowed on Wikipedia. This is a core content policy. The letters you describe are unpublished and unverified primary documents which are appropriate as raw material for research by historians. They are of no use at all to Wikipedia editors. Please understand this clearly: Wikipedia editors summarize what reliable, published sources say about the topic and it is contrary to well-established policy to go beyond that as you propose. You should submit an article on this matter to a journal of military history. If published there after professional editorial review, it may be acceptable to use a source on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Davidburdett: There are a lot of complex issues at play here. The first is whether the source you propose to use is an acceptable one for Wikipedia; to which the answer is it depends, but in any case not if it has not been published (i.e. made accessible to anyone ready to go to the library or pay an access fee).
The second is how to make the source published since it has not been already. You may not use Wikipedia in any shape or form for that; as said a couple of times, publishing new thought here is original research which is not allowed. If you intend to upload a file to use as a source, that is not possible here either; Wikipedia strives to be reusable by anyone anywhere with few conditions, and hence has stricter policies than "fair use" for the upload of material (see WP:NFCC for the full details, but I doubt you really need it). Also, if you intend to upload the thing on a third-party website, you will not be able to claim fair use if you upload the totality, and authenticity becomes sketchy if you just upload bits and pieces. I simply do not see a reasonable way to do this.
Finally, since you intend to use that source to contradict another, it is a controversial use and should certainly not be made based on what you say. I see that our article on Bobby Locke makes no claim about him having engaged in aircraft fights (and neither should it based solely on primary source claims). Also, "I was in the Air Force for X amount of time and flew Y hours" does not logically imply "I engaged the enemy", so I even fail to see how the claim you reference is false. TigraanClick here to contact me 18:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Whatare the permissable sryle for the name Martin Luther King Jr.?

Is a comma always required between King and Jr. with Jr always followed by a period?2605:E000:9143:7000:2CF0:1BBB:E1E3:52EE (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The relevant part of the Manual of Style is at MOS:JUNIOR.--David Biddulph (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
No comma is needed, but often appears. The j should be lower case, but 99% of folks write it wrong. "John Smith, junior" is simply a designation of being younger, not a formal title. If you want to copy all the folks who write it incorrectly, go with a comma and capital J. I'm sure you know that in 10 or 20 years, no one will use a capital letter, except at the beginning of a sentence. This is the result of phone texting, where the initial capital is automatic, and it is too much trouble to add the extra tap to make a capital letter. Wikievil666 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
While an unquestionably interesting look at the future of written English, the above IP should refer to the the Manual of Style, as to actually implement a world devoid of capitals would constitute a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Born vs Origin

In Background Information for a person, there is "Born" (a place) and "Origin" (a place). I'm sure origin is where someone or something begins, so how can a person originate at a place that is not their birthplace? Wikievil666 (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Wikievil666: - Many people are not born in the country which they most associate with, and would consider to be their origin. For instance, if I am born in Canada, but both of my parents are from the United States, and I grow up in the United States, my birthplace would be in Canada, but my origin would be in the United States. The first example that springs to my mind is Saoirse Ronan, who was born in America but is considered by reliable sources to be Irish. I hope that this clarifies matters for you somewhat. Stormyclouds 19:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, but surely that doesn't make sense. A different term could be used, such as "Most Associated Place", but "origin" definitely means the beginning, not some later place. No one reading "Origin" would think it can mean a place that someone's parents came from or a place the person later chose as a long-term residence. Wikipedia staff and the authors of articles are very stubborn and defensive. They are never open to the thought that they may need to change or improve anything.Wikievil666 (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
It may not make sense to you, and it doesn't have to, but it is not true that "no one" thinks that. Words can mean different things to different people in different parts of the world. What you might see as an improvement is not necessarily one to others. That is why Wikipedia relies on discussion, logical arguments, and consensus to reach decisions. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

What is the change between the national varieties of English?

By change I mean for example changing to Canadian/US/UK English.

- What does changing the language setting do?

- What does changing the display language setting do?

Thank you.
Ned (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The different English variants have different spellings for certain words. Think, for instance, of colour, which my American brethren spell as color. The settings govern this aspect of language, and in general, the accepted variant relates to the subject of the article. An article about Queen Elizabeth II, for instance, uses British English, while Donald Trump's article uses American spellings (color). Stormy clouds (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Stormy clouds: I know what the differences are but I don't know what changing the Wikipedia language setting (under preferences) actually does
Ned (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Help:preferences says "Change[s] the language of user-interface messages. It does not affect articles and other pages made by editors. Note that many interface messages have been customized at the English Wikipedia but usually only for the default "en - English" which may for example add links to relevant help pages, processes and policies. It is therefore not recommended to select "en-GB - British English" or "en-CA - Canadian English" which make a few spelling changes but omit many useful customizations." Gandalf61 (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I have my FB set on en-Pirate. LOL!!!Kent K. Shepard (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
You can't arrrrgue with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

change profile photo

Hello How do I change a profile photo? I would like to change the photo on David Bergtein page. Someone removed the old photo and uploaded a new one that I would like to change please. 47.37.171.239 (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey anon. The photo wasn't just removed from the article, but was deleted for being a copyright violation. With only a few exceptions, content on Wikipedia needs to be licensed for unrestricted public use. If you happen to have a way to contact the subject, they can do this by following the instructions at WP:CONSENT. Otherwise you can check out our tutorial on finding images for tips on how to find images that are usable on the articles here. GMGtalk 21:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

opinion on a verifiable source

Hello, I would appreciate an opinion on a verifiable source for an article I am writing since I have had some problems with that. There is an article at a verifiable source https://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2010/04/shout-out-eileen-tabios-poet-editor-issue-at-otoliths , that links to another article at an "e magazine" I would like to use, https://the-otolith.blogspot.com/2010/04/poet-editors-31-sandy-mcintosh.html It is listed on the World Cat at https://www.worldcat.org/title/otoliths/oclc/224749201 so I assume it is more than a self published blog and would be considered a good source. Your insight would be appreciated here. Thank you. Ogmany (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Ogmany. You may want to consider posting at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, which specializes in these kinds of questions. GMGtalk 22:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Semicolon usage

I remember being taught in school to use a semicolon in place of any comma that comes after a comma is used before a conjunction in that sentence. I know that this is a horrible explanation, so here's an example:

"I wanted to leave, but I had to stay; as no one else was ready to leave."

That always struck me as chopping sentences up unnecessarily, so I never did this myself. I didn't even think about it until editing wikipedia articles refreshed my memory. I see that this rule is followed in some articles, but not in others. Should I treat this semicolon usage in a similar fashion to the oxford comma, by leaving it be in articles that don't use it, and correcting it in articles that occasionally use it? Or, alternately, should I ignore its usage altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odd135 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Odd135. Semicolons are generally used in two major ways. The first is to separate lists of lists. So for example: "Steve had a blue cat and dog; red ball, oven, and watering can; and yellow ferret, cushion and suitcase" ...where each color represents an embedded list in a list-of-lists.
The other way is to separate two related independent clauses, which would otherwise be separated by a period, but which would not be spoken with a full stop. For example, "It's not about winning and losing; it's how you play the game."
The first instance acts like a second order comma, while the second acts like a second order period.
Although having said that, I generally try to avoid using semicolons all together when writing for Wikipedia. Ideally, Wikipedia articles should be written so that they are accessible to the largest audience possible. For me, this means that I try to write at about a secondary school level, so that a bright and inquisitive tenth grader can understand what's written. As your question illustrates, the proper use of semi colons is not well understood by the general public, and is a comparatively rarely used piece of punctuation. GMGtalk 22:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I want to say that I knew that, but I don't want to make an a-- out of myself and the refresher was genuinely helpful anyway. I asked because I remember that semicolon rule being hammered into me throughout high school, but now I'm searching for it and realizing that it isn't written down anywhere, I think that maybe I've just gone a little crazy. However, I will take to heart what you said about writing to be best understood, not most sophisticated. That makes a lot of sense now that I think about it. Odd135 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Connected applications

I stumbled on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:OAuthManageMyGrants I have no idea what these "things" (I don't know what to call them) are and have tried to find out unsuccessfully. Help appreciated. deisenbe (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey deisenbe. These are just additional gadgets that don't come with automatic authorization, so you have to manually authorize them using mw:Help:OAuth. This keeps you from having to share your password with third parties to use their gadget, and ensures that the gadgets more or less only do what they're supposed to be doing using your account to make changes under your name. GMGtalk 20:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks but you haven't answered my question. What do these gadgets do? They must each have at least a page. deisenbe (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Well deisenbe., the only ones I believe I use personally are Commons Helper which uses OAuthUploader and makes it easier to transfer files between the various language Wikipedias and Wikimedia Commons, and Crop Tool which makes it easy to crop images without needing to download and reupload them. The account creator one (see Wikipedia:Request an account/Guide) allows you to answer requests for new accounts, and I did have access to it once, but I never really used it enough to really figure out how it works. GMGtalk 20:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Which of the following are you talking about? OAuthUploader? Crop tool? Request an account? Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't tell.
UTRS Global OAuth Authenticator (Development Branches) [1.1] (revoke access)
Publisher: DeltaQuad
IABotManagementConsole [1.1] (manage access | revoke access)
Publisher: Cyberpower678
phabricator-production [1.1] (revoke access)
Publisher: MModell (WMF)
Dispenser [1.0] (manage access | revoke access)
Do you know if these are all enabled by default, or did I enable them myself? (Can't imágine why.) There should be a link to Help or explanations on that page. deisenbe (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
(Ah. Of course they're different for each user. Makes sense.) Well, deisenbe... I do know that Phabricator is the ticket system we use to track bugs in the software Wikipedia uses, so it would make sense that that would be enabled for everyone (also it's published by the Wikimedia Foundation). UTRS is the email system we use to send unblock requests, which I assume was enabled when you sent a request on the 12th of last month. As to IABotManagementConsole and Dispenser, I'm not really sure. Maybe someone more tech savvy like User:Primefac might know better than me. GMGtalk 21:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
IABotManagementConsole would have been enabled when you manually used IABot on an article. Dispenser [1.0] is for using one of Dispenser's many tools. Presumably enabled when you used the dablinks tool here. Regards, Dairy {talk} 23:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Page nominated for deletion.

Dear Wikipedia community!

I had submitted my Skycop.com article for review, but it was nominated for deletion.. Need your opinion on the article I'm working on. I'll really appreciate any advice you can give. I try to stick to the rules, but there's still a chance that I've missed something important while editing the article.

Here's a link on the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Skycop.com

Jklmnopr (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jklmnopr: Sorry, that article had to go and apparently so did you. The draft remains, but still reads as promotional, so it may get deleted or it may wait until someone comes along to improve it. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jklmnopr: (edit conflict) The user who reviewed your draft gave you good advice, which I agree with; the draft does not indicate with independent reliable sources that offer in depth coverage how the company meets the notability guidelines listed at WP:ORG. It is not enough to merely tell about a company and what it does. Third party, independent sources need to have extensively written about this company and why it is notable(as Wikipedia defines it) Not every company merits an article here. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Gretsch

Just a couple of minutes ago I noticed a user made some changes to the Gretsch article, leaving this summary "The page is currently undergoing a major update by a Gretsch Company representative. More changes to come.". I undid the changes cause they had also removed all the references in that part of the article. Did I do right, or should I have asked someone more experienced first? Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 21:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Miss Bono. I have left the user a warning regarding our policy on conflicts of interest. The changes were pretty promotional in tone, besides removing referenced (I'm a little surprised to find that it doesn't seem to be copy/pasted from online), and I'd say you were well within your rights to remove it. Just that it's usually good to drop some kind of note, so that people know why they were reverted, and not just that they were reverted. GMGtalk 21:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Miss Bono: No, it sounds like you acted in the right in this case. User:SATGC left a suspicious edit summary, as you noted, and his edits were unconstructive to the article. This may warrant further investigation, as it is a blatant WP:COI issue - if they are removing references, it is possibly something more, but either way, the firm does not own the Wikipedia page, despite its attempts to assert so as noted above. Whatever is added by the Gretsch Company representative will need thorough vetting. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, guys. I was worried, actually, because I felt like I should have left a kind message. I feel kind guilty now. I think I should leave a note now? Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 13:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_727&oldid=970827984"