Help desk
< April 18	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

April 19

Adding from own work

I would like to add some text from own work (which I've published before on the internet) to Wikipedia. I reckon I don't have to add on my blog that I've copied something from Wikipedia after that. What is the right procedure to follow to make sure there no one can complain about copyright issues? Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are here: Wikipedia:No original research. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Read donating copyrighted materials, make sure you fully understand the consequences (in particular, this is irrevocable and will allow others to use your work in things other than Wikipedia), and then follow the instructions. --N Y Kevin 01:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But unless the material on your blog is already encyclopaedic, referencing reliable published sources and not presenting any new arguments, conclusion, or synthesis, then it is not appropriate for Wikipedia anyway, as Mlpearc said. --ColinFine (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me out to the guidelines. Yes, I was asked by my tutor to write a piece about the history of wind mills which did not make it in my final paper. It's written as I would write an encyclopedic article. No own research, but repeating literature. Kind regards Timelezz (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it was not published in some independent third-party venue with editorial control and standards, it is not a reliable source and cannot be used here. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That does not apply here. If it is copyright-free, one can use the text to use on Wikipedia. If that rule would apply for all text written on Wikipedia we would have a big problem since everything is orginally written by individual author and not published in some independent third-party venue with editorial control and standards. Glad Wikipedia makes this so *** difficult. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User removing referenced statements from articles without justification

I and another editor wrote to User:Mkonji128 regarding the user's removal of referenced statements from articles without reason earlier (and no edit comments). Somewhat heeding our concerns, he re-removed the statements adding edit comments that they were "inaccurate." On the user's talk page I've asked if the user could provide sources showing these are inaccurate. Most of the edits seem to contradict a NPOV (i.e., have a pro-US military view). I've also written on the article's talk page. What should I do with these *referenced* statements that have been removed. What is the best way to act on this. I'm concerned that by excluding these statements the article is much more biased than it was previously. Should I report this somewhere specific? Thanks for the guidance. Computermacgyver (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've done the right thing by engaging with the other editor. At some point it may be appropriate to take it to a noticeboard, but please make sure you've exhausted the earlier stages in dispute resolution before you do so. --ColinFine (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay to remove notice after editing page?

Newbie here. If I respond to one of the Help Out requests on the Community Portal, and I believe that I've fixed the problem indicated, should I remove the tag at the top of the page to indicate that it's no longer a problem, or will the person who created the tag review the page and decide whether to remove it? Thanks. OlyBin (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe a tag on a page is no longer appropriate (whether it was you that fixed the problem, or somebody else, or even that you don't agree that there is a problem) you are welcome to remove the tag. It's best to leave an edit summary making clear why you think it is appropriate to remove it. If somebody disagrees with you, they should open a discussion with you on a talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete a page

i have inadvertantly set up a page with my name and not the name of my company. how do i delete it and start afresh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo Chandor (talk • contribs) 09:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hugh Chandor. I'm not sure what page you set up: your account has no edits apart from this one. But you should first read conflict of interest, to understand why you are strongly discouraged from writing an article about your company; and then if you want to proceed, look at your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think they meant that they created an account (their term: page) with their own name instead of that of their company. Wikipedia does not allow user names that are the same as a company's name due to the promotional nature of those names. See WP:USERNAME for more on that. And yes, you should also familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest policy mentioned previously by Colin. Dismas|^(talk) 14:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOIRE CAMPAIGN (1429)

I BELIEVE THAT THE ARTICLE CONCERNING THE 1429 LOIRE CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN INTENTIONAL ALTERED TO CONTAIN FALSE INFORMATION. IT CITES THE "DUKE OF HANOVER" AS AN ENGLISH CHAMPION AND NOTES HIS CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ENGLISH ROYAL FAMILY. THERE WAS NO DUKE OF HANOVER WHO TOOK PART IN THIS CAMPAIGN. IN FACT, THERE WERE NOT DUKES OF HANOVER ANYWHERE AT THIS TIME. ANY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ENGLISH ROYAL FAMILY DID NOT OCCUR UNTIL THE END OF THE 17TH CENTURY WHEN THE GRAND DAUGHTER OF JAMES I MARRIED THE ELECTOR OF HANOVER.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.241.232 (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. That was some 2010 vintage vandalism by 166.109.0.45, which has now been removed. Thanks for your vigilance! By the way, could you please leave the caps lock off? Its use is discouraged by WP:SHOUTING. Favonian (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preferences: Connected apps

I want the list of those apps. What are they and how should I use them? Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See MW:Special:OAuthListConsumers. How to use them is up to the application author. Many of them are on MW:Wikimedia Labs. Spinning Spark 16:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. --Zyma (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Plagiarism?

The article on Rosephanye Powell seems to have become infected with wording from the author's website. This happened down in the history a little way and should have been reverted at the time. Is there a department that evaluates this kind of thing? Is there an easy way to sort it out, or does it just have to be rewritten to eliminate the common wording? Pkeets (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've recently noticed students working in Wikipedia as part of school assignments who view the subject's website as a convenient source of information for expanding articles. Is there someone in charge of this program? If so, are guidelines clearly posted that mention the subject's website isn't the most appropriate source? Pkeets (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, if it's for a school assignment, they'd have a class in the Education program's course list, with a teacher and perhaps ambassador defined. You could talk to the student and bring up appropriate Wikipedia policy (even classes are required to follow it). If that doesn't work, there may then be the option of asking the teacher or ambassador to communicate the info to the student in person. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It will be impossible to handle this on an individual basis. The additions are often well down in the history before they can be discovered. (Note my question above on what to do about Powell's article.) Plus, I gather that school assignments or sponsored sessions is an increasing effort, especially through edit-a-thons to increase the number of women editors in Wikipedia. It would be much easier to provide clear guidelines on how the articles should be edited in these cases. Pkeets (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the Education program page and see that it recommends expansion of stub articles. This is the source of some of the problem. Stub articles are often that way because there is little information available through secondary sources. Copying and pasting information from the subject's website isn't the way to expand them, and this should be pointed out in the guidelines. Who's in charge of the way that page is written? Pkeets (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example of an article expanded through additions from the subject's website. This one is definitely a student editor. The obvious solution is just to revert the changes, of course. Pkeets (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In cases of policy violations, I'd do what I'd do with any other editor: revert and warn. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once it's down in the page history this affects later edits. It would be better to deal with the problem proactively. Pkeets (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of advice on how to deal with these problems at WP:DCV. That should answer most of your questions. What to do in individual cases has to be assessed on a case by case basis. If the copyvio material can easily be edited out, then do that. If not, it may be necessary to revert back to the last clean version, possibly putting back some of the good information by hand. Spinning Spark 01:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, shall I consider the subject's website an okay source for expanding a stub article, or just delete all the additions? That's what it boils down to. I have a bunch of articles on my watch list, and I'd really rather not have to constantly rewrite them to remove info from the subject's webpage. Pkeets (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Column width help

Hello,

I need help with the width of columns on the list found at Deportation_of_Armenian_intellectuals_on_24_April_1915. I want to make the "Fate" column a tad bit smaller. Also, I want to make the "First place of Deportation" column much smaller. I want to do this to make other, more important columns, wider (i.e. notes, occupation). Please, be gentle with this article when editing, it's currently nominated for FL. Thanks, Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have enabled the "Fate" and "First place of Deportation" columns to be more narrow with some soft hyphens.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of television characters

I hope that everyone don't mind that I've diffused the category Category:Lists of television characters. I just want to be helpful. Hope that's okay.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot view Changes on mobile telepnone

Can one view the details of changes (diff) on the mobile version? All I can see is that there was an edit made that changed the article.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can. The diff of your edit to this page for instance. However, I don't know any easy way of finding the diffs on the mobile version. I got to it by apending "?action=history" to the url, and from the history one can select a diff. Unfortunately the history page reverts to the non-mobile version and is a mess on a mobile device, but still usable. Spinning Spark 23:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I figured it out. I had to clear out my Chrome browser, go to Wikipedia on my mobile and click "desktop" a the bottom of the page and then sync my home computer to my mobile. In any case Wikipedia needs to allow the option to switch between the mobile and desktop versions without rebuilding Rome. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 April 19

Contents