Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 263

Archive 260

Archive 261

Archive 262

Archive 263

Archive 264

Archive 265

→

Archive 270

lack of process in user:Jimfbleak's deletion of Hiren's BootCD

I am appalled at the lack of process in user:Jimfbleak's deletion of Hiren's BootCD - the deletion failed to meet the stated criteria of (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). How do I get this reverted so that the pros and cons can be argued out? Where do I find the content of the removed Article and Talk pages? How do we prevent the heavy-handed arrogance of user:Jimfbleak and user:Ianmacm from destroying wp? And please look at my contribution history and expertise before leaping to the same careless conclusions that those two leapt to. BenevolentUncle (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Looked pretty promotional to me: glowing testimonials, lists of features; it even went so far as to provide a download URL for the software. If you're determined to argue the toss then Deletion review is the place to do it, but you'd probably be better off recreating it from scratch in a neutral form. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times that I've nominated an article for deletion, because usually I believe in fixing the article as the preferred option. However, this article had major WP:G11 issues and was previously deleted for the same reason in May 2010.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Right. Step 1 of the Deletion review is to first attempt discussion with the closing administrator i.e. user:Jimfbleak, so I'll do that here. Albeit with ill grace, because Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion says that

If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria

i.e. I infer that discussion should have occurred before deletion, which did not happen. So lets first fix up the mis-process of deletion so that other wp-ians have ready access to the delete article and Talk pages before finalising a decision. I.e. revert the deletion and instead nominate it for deletion. Then I will be able to click on the Contest this speedy deletion button or follow some other appropriate process while other editors are able to have their say. btw, I don't contest that the page is dodgy, but I assert that greater care is required than relying on quick impressions. And I resent the extra work that user:Jimfbleak and user:Ianmacm are putting me through. In case you haven't figured this out, I am not a rorter, quite the opposite. Indeed, re AGF I am assuming cock-up rather than conspiracy on the part of user:Jimfbleak and user:Ianmacm, because Hiren & Co would be much better off financially if there is no readily-available wp article describing their CD's short-comings.

Once the issue of mis-process above has been dealt with, I regard the editing of this article as potentially an important test case for the future directions of wp. At the very least I regard it as essential that the world should have ready access to the article's history, even if it stays off the official wp canon - I wasted an hour trying to download Hiren's CD before I turned to wp and read its History and Talk pages (this data then let me understand the extent to which Hiren's is merely click bait vs having some dubious value reassembling and/or stealing the IP of the original authors). But the bigger issue is whether a new principle needs to be promulgated re when the rules are to be imposed; giving declining numbers of wp editors, I think that if wp fails to get such settings right then it will continue to lose contributors and then be unevenly pruned back (in the fight against increasing hordes of rorters) to an ugly stump of greatly reduced value by decreasing numbers of editors whose main talents lie in nitpicking rather than in expertly informing.

BenevolentUncle (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

But it did not survive its most recent deletion discussion. —teb728 t c 22:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Beside that you seem to be under the misconception that speedy deletion requires a deletion discussion. That is wrong: The main purpose of speedy deletion is to allow deletion of pages without discussion if they meet certain limited criteria (like being unambiguously promotional). —teb728 t c 23:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@teb728, from memory (and I am forced to rely on memory because I can't access the history!!) there was a discussion circa 2011 re deletion in the Talk pages and evident in the History but it was not deleted, so regardless of whether it was once deleted in 2010, it did survive for years after its most recent deletion discussion. Thus I was not suffering the misconception you described: I understand that speedy deletion does not require discussion; instead my complaint was that did it not qualify for speedy deletion in the first place. I am also peeved that rather than replying to my detailed Talk reply, user:Ianmacm got user:Jimfbleak to delete the article's pages along with my reply - that seems quite rude to me. Indeed, I thought user:Ianmacm's last threat to delete the article was tantamount to bullying; I ignored it in the expectation of due process, so I am appalled at due process not being followed.

Could I also point out that best wp practice cannot be adequately reviewed if the offending administrator deletes all the evidence. When I went to leave a msg on user:Jimfbleak's Talk page, I noticed it is full of other editors asking if they can get access to what was deleted. If user:Jimfbleak is so busy that he only has time to shoot first and let others ask questions later, perhaps the solution is to act in a way that encourages folk to participate in wp, instead of leave it.

BenevolentUncle (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@ user:Yunshui ironically, the reason it looked so promotional was because User:Ianmacm had reverted my criticisms of it. I was trying to efficiently provide balance by breaking the rules to match the rule-breaking of the article as it existed, and he got stroppy with my rule breaking without bothering to fix the huge mass of rules already broken. Given the resulting kerfuffle, next time I am more likely to not bother. And if enough similar editors have similar experiences, then wp will (continue to?) haemorrhage. BenevolentUncle (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

All of this should really be on the article talk page rather than forum shopping elsewhere. The reason why Hiren's Boot CD is controversial and has so little reliable sourcing is because it contains unauthorized use of copyrighted software. Criticizing it by adding even more original research makes the article worse, not better. And using bold or italics to add personal opinions about the software to the article is silly. This is an unfixable article unless some reliable sources can be found.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with much of this, and will copy this conversation to the Talk page once it has been restored as per my request to user:Jimfbleak on his Talk page. Then we can get back to where we should have been 1000 words ago, i.e. discussing how to fix the situation, preferably without dismissing each other's ideas as silly before having considered them. BenevolentUncle (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

user:Jimfbleak wrote on my Talk page that he has restored the full history of the Hiren's Talk page, but this has not yet actually happened. BenevolentUncle (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference incorrect

Hello, Can anyone guide me toward removal of a false reference and a successful edit of an entry? I'm trying to edit a company entry that lists an incorrect reference. The reference is one of those purchasable listings- you know, one of those websites that hold your ability to edit your company listing for ransom. The problem is, every time I try to edit our Wikipedia History (the founding information is wrong) it is being reverted due to that reference with incorrect information. CAEdits (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for visiting the Teahouse, CAEdits. I think we need to know little more information before we can help you with this question. Can you tell us to which article you refer? I am not familiar with the term 'edit a company entry'. Are you suggesting that a company itself is editing a Wikipedia article?

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

CAEdits, it appears your account has never been used for editing before (contribs), so we can't tell by looking at it where you're having this conflict. Please link us to it. Also, please ensure only one person uses a given account, it's not allowed to have a shared "company account". Also, I will admit I'm initially skeptical because people involved with a company often have a very different slant on presenting it than do neutral parties. Not saying you, but we have a lot of companies complaining because perfectly true, albeit negative, facts make it onto the article about them. Note that an article about a company is absolutely not an article for a company. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Thank you so much for taking the time to respond. This is the entry I've been tasked with editing since there have been so many failed attempts, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freightquote.com. There is nothing negative that we're trying to change, just the facts. You can see that reference #3 isn't exactly reputable and it appears to be the issue. I don't see another reference that denotes a 2nd founder and we can provide several 3rd party references of the correct founder info. Your guidance is so very appreciated. CAEdits (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, CAEdits. I have looked at the article and I've also looked into reference #3 but I cannot see why this reference is not reputable. Do you have a problem with reference #2? Both of these references seem to support the preceding statement. Are you saying that your third party references, currently not part of the article, contradict reference #3? You are free to remove the reference as an editor. You may then insert the other references that you have that support the statements that are in the article. I do have to admit though, when you state "I've been tasked..." it might suggest that there might be a problem with neutrality regarding this article. Do you feel there is a conflict of interest? Do you work for or are you affiliated with Freightquote?

  Bfpage |leave a message  00:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

NewsFix

Hello fellow Wikipedians! Can someone confirm what SuperHamster said?

By the way, NewsFix was accepted by Shirik and this is my first article. Yay :) Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 22:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Brandon. The distressing of the IX—the letters crumbling like they're stone—may meet the threshold of originality. What I would do is post to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for second opinion. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Brandon (MrWooHoo). Please note that our policy on use of non-free images allows use of logos in articles about those entities. Instead of trying to make the argument that the logo isn't original enough to be copyrighted and can be added to Wikimedia Commons, I think that the preferable and easiest course of action is to upload it to Wikipedia with a rationale allowing use in that article only. That's my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you help me get a draft article approved?

Because I think it is a noteworthy organization, although I am not even a member, I wrote "Book Club of California" and submitted it for approval. I included two independent sources, articles in the SF Chronicle and AbeBooks. I've asked the Club for more suggestions but haven't received any. I think any organization that's lasted over 100 years and published more than 200 limited editions is notable. Is there someone here who could overrule Zach Vega's decision? HarZim (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, HarZim. I agree with you that this club is likely notable, and should have a Wikipedia article. The San Francisco Chronicle story is a good solid reference toward notability. AbeBooks has weaknesses since it is a commercial business owned by Amazon that sells collectible books. Most of the other references are published by the club itself, and do not establish notability. So identifying and referencing other independent sources should get you over the threshold. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi HarZim. In addition, to the advice given above by Cullen, I suggest posting a message on Zach Vega's talk page and politely asking them for suggestions. Zach Vega was, after all, the editor who declined the submission, so they would be best able to explain their reasons for doing so. It couldn't hurt and you might get some good feedback and help in return. Just a suggestion and good luck. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Last time I checked, ZV had not been active since mid June 2014. At that point some of his reviews were questionable, I'm afraid. I'll take a look at this draft now. Fiddle Faddle 12:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done and left a comment there with a view to aiding a resubmission. There remains some work, not hugely arduous, but work even so. And ZV has not been seen since 15 June. Fiddle Faddle 12:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

how how to insert photo , which is in the compute

how to insert photo , which is in the computerSiddeash (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Siddeash welcome to the Teahouse, You have to use File Upload Wizard upload an image from your computer to Wikipedia. But before you upload an image, make sure that you are familiar with copyright policies of Wikipedia. You can't upload every image you see/have to the Wikipedia. You must have a proper copyright license to do so.User Yunshui wrote an essay to help Wikipedia beginners to upload their images to Wikipedia. You can check it out by clicking here. Hope this helps--Chamith (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

'See also' correct linking

Being new, wondering what is wrong with this 'See also' link that I added to a biography article? Joseph G. Pinten

Here's the link

• Historical bishops list J G Pinten, number 354 (1922–1926)

Someone with an IP address instead of a name did the 'undo' but did not explain to me why the above is wrong. I added the 'number 354' etc. in text because the article contains over 1,300 links & thought it would be easier to find this bishop's entry in the article list.

JoeHebda (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello JoeHebda welcome to the Teahouse, I'm not sure what you are talking about because the wiki-link you are talking about (Historical bishops list) already exists under See also on that article you mentioned. That IP user only removed links to external websites. If you are asking why he removed those external links then it's because he couldn't identify them as reliable sources. According to Wikipedia external links policies, These kind of links should be avoided--Chamith (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the See also section is a list of related articles, not a list of citations, an entry in it doesn't need a citation to a particular line in an article, just the name of the article. 32.218.37.114 (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings @JoeHebda: Welcome to the teahouse. I took a quick look at the edit history. Just one bit of minor feedback: I noticed you marked several edits as minor edits. In my experience most edits aren't minor. I usually only mark something as a minor edit if I am 99.9% sure that no other sane editor would object; things like correcting a spelling error or some wiki code that is broken or generating an error. I notice that the anonymous user who reverted some of your edits left a (rather rude IMO) edit summary asking you to stop making "phony edit summaries" While that user's summary was not good Wikipedia wp:etiquette I think the point they may have been getting at is that you were marking too many of your edits as minor. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No - The point being made was that in his edit summaries JoeHebda claimed that he was "updating" citations, when in fact he was substantially modifying them. Updating occurs, for example, when you change an old URL to a new one or when you change out of date information to current information. When you completely revise a citation and call it "updating", that's an inaccurate, or "phony", edit summary. 32.218.46.153 (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks.

JoeHebda (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

IMDb

Is IMDb a reliable source for adding references to a film's budget? Thamizhan1994 (^{Appo Pesu}) 05:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse! Wikipedia suggest IMDb should only be used as a tertiary source for "hard data" on released films. It is recommended you find another reliable source to back up the film budget, just dig deeper! You could learn more about using IMDb as a source at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. ///EuroCarGT 20:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Why can't I edit an article

I have just logged in to the account I recently created. I wanted to edit an article with semi-protection, but the edit button still wasn't at the top of the page Dr. British12 (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse Dr. British12! The page had no edit tab on the top because you needed to be autoconfirmed to edit semi-protected pages. Once you get 10 edits and 4 days of Wikipedia activity, your account will be autoconfirmed and you will be able to edit the page. The reason why the page is protected because it is prone to vandalism, disruptive editing and other factors. For now you may request at edit request using {{Edit semi-protected}} template on the article's talk page. Best. ///EuroCarGT 20:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the copyright situation and my contribution is going to be deleted as a result

I submitted a entry to wikipedia - John Bonoh Sisay - the CEO of Sierra Rutile. It is marked for deletion because of some copyright issues, but I don't understand why. All the content I quoted used is freely available on the web and I attributed it.

Memunaforna (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Memunaforna, the article, John Bonoh Sisay, isn't marked for deletion for any copyright reasons but because an editor believes that the subject doesn't meet the notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. While the company may be notable, it doesn't automatically follow that any of it's senior managers, including its CEO, are themselves notable and the article seems a bit light on information on what make him, rather than the company, notable. Nthep (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You created a draft of the article Draft:John Bonoh Sisay which was deleted as a copyright violation on 4th September. You uploaded a photograph of John Bonoh Sisay which was tagged for deletion because of copyright issues, (no proof that the creator of the file had agreed to release it under the given license). Then I tagged your article John Bonoh Sisay for speedy deletion because it doesn't credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject, see WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. What can I do to improve the article and prove that the subject is relevant. He is the first Sierra Leonean CEO of an AIM listed company in Sierra Leone. In a country where large international companies have always been headed up by expats, he has broken the mould. He was Goldsmith's first African student union president and is currently a presidential adviser. I agree that the CEO of a company doesn't necessarily qualify for inclusion, but in Sierra Leone, his position is unique and that is why I considered he was suitable subject matter for a wikipedia entry. I look forward to hearing from you. Memunaforna (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Memunaforna: the person sounds very interesting but unfortunately who they are and what they have done isn't the thing that matters for Wikipedia. It's what wp:reliable sources say about the subject that matter. So if you can find articles in sources that wikipedia considers reliable that back up all the things you said above that is what is needed. If there hasn't been significant coverage of the person in such sources then unfortunately he's not wp:notable Have you looked at the links people have left in the response here? If you go to the articles linked to in my reply and the earlier replies they describe what counts as good sources and what wp:notability means to Wikipedia. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

About speedy deletion

I understand that speedy deletion will be applied on articles that are made up or vandalism. But how do you add the suggestion of speedy deletion in to an article? Can someone summarize it into a few sentences? The page about speedy deletion is a bit too long... -- Annonymus user (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Annonymus user. A list of reasons for speedy deletion and associated templates can be found at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Make sure that you understand the criteria and choose the right template, and then follow the instructions in the documentation for that template - people can get annoyed by a speedy deletion template that is not appropriate. If you want advice on a specific article, feel free to ask us. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings @Annonymus user: Welcome to the Teahouse. the best thing to do is just look at the article that @RockMagnetist: linked to above. It's hard to summarize because as you could see in that article there are a lot of potential reasons for speedy deletion. But essentially it comes down to things that are just obviously not appropriate because they clearly violate an important Wikipedia policy. So besides vandalism things like copyright infringement, obvious nonsense, empty pages, etc. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Why did Wikipedia delete my article?

When I entered into Wikipedia I had a request to "Speedily Delete" my article. It was two paragraphs, but why did they delete it, my can't they just edit it? I also don't understand why people are allowed to tell me to delete my own article and if I don't they can delete it instead. I didn't even understand the e-mail Wikipedia sent me. Please answer my question A.S.A.P!

Thanks Daph360Daph360 (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Daph360: Hi Daph360. I don't think anyone asked that you delete the article. Rather you were informed on your talk page first that the article had been proposed for deletion under one deletion process, and then was tagged for speedy deletion under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, under which it was actually deleted (a few times).

The issue identified in that criterion is that after an article on a topic has been discussed on the merits at a deletion debate, and ultimately deleted, if an article on that same topic is recreated, and is not significantly different from the prior deleted content—the same problems that were targeted in the discussion are still present—it can be speedily deleted. Here, Spirit Animals was deleted after a deletion discussion took place in April, which you can view at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spirit animals.

So, when you created an article on the same topic on October 11, it was tagged as being subject to the prior discussion and thus eligible for speedy deletion under the "section G4" criterion I mentioned and linked to. I also see that another account name, User:ASLKFK, recreated the same content again on October 12 (which was deleted on the same basis) – was that also you?

Anyway, note that the basis for deletion at the discussion was insufficient evidence of notability (that link is to the general notability standard; there is also a book specific guideline on notability). The heart of the matter was that the content did not contain any citations to reliable, secondary sources, discussing this book is detail, which is what would be needed upon a repost to evidence notability. The content you posted did not either. I can't speak to the email you received unless you disclose what it said. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I was about to write the same thing. Please understand that Wikipedia cannot be a repository of every book ever published. These things need to meet a certain threshold of notability. If the book in question has received literary awards or been the subject of book reviews in respected publications, then a case could be made that it merits an article on Wikipedia. Keihatsu ^talk 03:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much I understand now Fuhghettaboutit. By the way, I like your user name :)

2605:E000:1C0B:12F:D154:9F7A:BAE3:A6A7 (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

middle of the page

I see here users are putting their recent questions in the middle of this page.Is this allowed or has Wikipedia changed the rule?Jojolpa (talk) 06:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there @Jojolpa: Almost all talk pages and discussion areas on Wikipedia require new topics to be added at the bottom of the page. The Teahouse (this page) happens to be an exception, where new questions go at the top. This helps promote the visibility of new questions, though it can be confusing. I haven't noticed any new topics/questions being added to the middle of the page myself, but if they are, it wouldn't be recommended. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jojolpa, Welcome to the Teahouse.Like SuperHamster said new questions should be placed at the top of the page as mentioned in the page notice. But there are no rules regarding that, it's just a notice. However by placing it at top we can easily see that there is a new question so that it might get answered quickly. But if you placed it at the bottom/middle it's kind of annoying because we have to spend extra time looking for the question. Regards--Chamith (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

formatting my article and making sure it's been submitted

Hi I've just written an article in my sandbox. Not sure how to go about formatting it properly. Also, I think I've submitted it for review, but how can I be sure? I didn't get any sort of confirmation. Thanks Marie Taillard (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Marie, welcome to the Teahouse. SuperHamster has made some improvements in the formatting of your draft User:Marie Taillard/sandbox. There is still a lot more to be done... you will probably find it useful to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. The content is also problematic, since the draft presently seems intended partly to promote things that you or organisations associated with you have done. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is thus not intended for promotion. The draft is not currently submitted for review, but if you are able to fix these problems then you could submit it for review by putting {{subst:submit}} at the top of it. There is currently a wait of several weeks or more for submitted drafts to be reviewed. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey there Marie - here's some of my improvments and suggestions, expanding on Arthur's excellent response.

It looks like you tried to submit, but it didn't actually work, as the reference tags you placed in the article weren't properly closed (i.e. you started references with <ref>, but didn't end them with </ref>). This just caused errors in rendering the submission at the bottom of the page. I've gone ahead and fixed this for you; feel free to remove the submission template at the top of the page if you want to wait and work on the article a bit more.

In regards to formatting and other issues, there are a few big things I noticed off-the-bat that I'll touch on:

• External links (links to other websites) should not appear in the body of the article. If you'd like to cite a website as a source of information, you can do so through in-line citations. Take a look at, say, Blueberry. Notice the little superscripted numbers after many of the sentences and statements - clicking these will take you down to a 'References' section that shows you where each bit of information is sourced to. You may find Help:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners helpful when trying to add citations, or even try looking at another article's code to see how it's done. I do notice that you have a few references at the bottom of the article - this is great, but I do strongly recommend you take these references and apply them at the end of each "fact" you'd like to cite throughout the article, as I mentioned above.
• Make sure the article's subject is notable enough for inclusion; in other words, the subject should be covered in enough reliable and third-party sources that makes the subject significant enough for a Wikipedia article. I don't know much about marketing, so I'm not of much use here, but the term 'creativity marketing' should be established and used commonly enough that it wouldn't be considered a neologism. Stemming off of this, the page should not be promotional, as Arthur noted. I notice the article is heavily based off of a Harvard site/blog; this may be fine as one source of information, but a variety of other sources are also needed.
• I noticed you tried to split the page into sections using bullet points. Instead, we create headers like this: == TITLE ==. I've gone ahead and fixed these too.

I know this is a lot to hit you with, but hopefully it helps! Feel free to ask for clarification on anything in particular. I always find that taking a look at the code behind other articles to see how things are done is one of the easiest ways to learn about formatting. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Indiaproperty looks like a notable real estate portal

Better late than never, I have started my journey at Wikipedia. Today, I stumbled upon a page called Magicbricks and after few minor edits I saved it.

Then, I found Indiaproperty which is a similar and equally notable real estate portal, moreover a popular Indian company is about to get deleted. Then, I have edited the content with useful information and saved it.

Request to check this Indiaproperty page that I have edited today, I have tried and edited to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic with appropriate links. I am going to remove the warning tags, before its too late. Any suggestions please? Tapovahini (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Tavahini and welcome to the Teahouse. It is good that you have asked for help rather than edit warring. I have removed the proposed deletion template again, as it seems more appropriate that this article should go through a formal Articles for Deletion process (which normally takes seven days and permits anyone to comment) if its notability is in question. User:Cpt.a.haddock should not restore the proposed deletion template, instead he could take it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if he so wishes. You can continue adding independent reliable sources to the article in the meantime. A good summary of what is required for notability is at Wikipedia:VRS. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Its very interesting Arthur. Thank you. Tapovahini (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Biography article needs to be renamed

This bishop's middle initial is incorrect on wikipedia. Theodore M. Reverman

It needs to be renamed to Theodore H. Reverman. At Find-A-Grave website there is a cemetery gravestone picture showing his middle initial is 'H' (for Henry).

Rev Fr. Theodore H Reverman http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=reverman&GSfn=theodore&GSiman=1&GScid=87670&GRid=77035245&

What is the correct process to have this changed?

Can I change the article Infobox & intro sentence ahead of time?

Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello JoeHebda welcome again, The name on article is correct. It says "Theodore H. Reverman" not "Theodore M. Reverman". It is just a redirect which means if you typed "Theodore M. Reverman" on the search bar it will take you to the "Theodore H. Reverman" article instead. You will see a message saying "(Redirected from Theodore M. Reverman)"at the top of the page.--Chamith (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

On page Theodore H. Reverman history, it shows the Theodore M article was moved to Theodore H article. Appears there may have been 2 articles 'out there'? Totally beyond me & so thankful another editor or admin made this correction. Thanks :-) I do totally see the value of teamwork!!

JoeHebda (talk) 10:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

other talk pages

it is mentioned ask question at the top of this page.i think every talk pages of articles should mention start talk or something like that at the top ,shouldn't they?i am suggesting this in order to have an easy access to edit.Jojolpa (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jojolpa: Talk pages have a "New section" tab at top. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Submit to wikisource

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bentsutomu1234/sandbox&oldid=629920640

I would like to submit to wikisouce. How do I do this. I'm not very good with computers so please be specific. thank you. Example, where I can post on to wikisource. Also, I cannot read very well so, something small to analyze would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentsutomu1234 (talk • contribs)

Hi Bentsutomu1234. This is a help page for Wikipedia. Wikisource is another project. They have a help page at wikisource:Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. I don't know much about their policies but I looked it up to try to answer your question and found wikisource:Wikisource:What Wikisource includes#Scientific research. It sounds like your paper is not suited for Wikisource. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

unable to post my article

hi, i am unable to publish my article which contains information about my company, my company BrandInstitute Pte Ltd is a 6 year old company and is a highly experienced company in the field of marketing. you can find it on the second page of google. it is leading company of singapore. please help in this caseAhsan Aftab Ansari (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ahsan Aftab Ansari Welcome to the Teahouse, If you are writing an article about your own company then the chance of it getting rejected is very high. This is because writing about your own interests creates a conflict of interest. People often forget about Wikipedia's neutral point of view when writing about their own companies/industries. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not a place where you can promote/advertise your stuff. However if your company is notable (you must have reliable sources to prove its' credibility) and if you can write an article without harming neutrality then you have a chance of creating an article about your company but this is extremely rare. In case you wonder what is neutral point of view is, then here is a brief introduction.--Chamith (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Not every corporation passes WP:CORP. You may need to accept that it is just plain not notable. Fiddle Faddle 16:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright

I recently created a Wikipedia page. I copied content from my webpage, which I wrote. Should I worry about my page being deleted? The page was flagged after I posted it for not being "notable" and also for violating copyright rules. I sent an email approving my Wikipedia page to use my own words, but could you please advise me how to ensure that it won't be deleted? D Demetriar4 (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Demetriar4 welcome to the Teahouse, Yes it will be deleted, not because of notability, because you copy-pasted content from another site. According to WP:COPYPASTE policy you may not copy and paste text from other sources into Wikipedia. Because it is a copyright violation. However, license owners (in this occasion if you own that website then you own the license) may donate their texts to Wikipedia. As described in Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials if you would like to allow Wikipedia to use your content, be it text or images, but don't want to put a license statement on the website, you still must release it under the free licenses noted above and can do so in the following ways:

For text, you can send an email, ideally using the language from the template at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries:

(1) From an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org;

(2) After sending the email, place {{OTRS pending}} on the article's talk page.

Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.

For images, you can send an email, ideally using the language from the template at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries:

(1) From an address associated with the original publication to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org;

(2) Then upload the file to Wikimedia Commons and place {{OTRS pending}} on the image page.

Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.--Chamith (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

But also note that even if the copyright issue is dealt with, material copied from a website is unlikely to be sufficiently neutral in tone to be acceptable. "Official" web pages exist to promote their subjects, and that is the very antithesis of an appropriate Wikipedia article.--ukexpat (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What process to follow when the Template is inconsistent with the policy which it supports?

In my first 5 days, I came across a template, which is not consistent with the Wikipedia policy that it's supposed to support. A single word difference between the Template and Policy has caused confusion on a particular article.

I'm assuming that the Wikipedia policy / guideline docs are correct, because several of them are mutually consistent, suggesting that the Template needs to be updted.

So, should the article editing be halted until the template is updated to be consistent with the policy, or can editing continue on the basis of the policy, ignoring the wrong template?

Also, I'm not quite sure who should be informed about the need to maintain the template. So far, I've left a comment on the talk page of the User who introduced the text into the Template, and on the Template Talk page, as well as on the Talk Page of Twinkle Talk page, per instructions on the Template page. However, I'm not sure if I've done it correctly, and whether I should have alerted anyone else.

Please advise. Tennispompom (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings @Tennispompom: Welcome to the teahouse. I don't know if there is a general answer to your question about how to resolve a template and a policy. I think it would help a lot if you told us specifically which template and which policy. However, I took a quick look at your edit history and the recent edits to this talk page: Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 I think you may not quite get the way Wikipedia works. You seem to want to impose a very structured and managed process on the editing of that page. As someone who used to be a software project manager myself I can understand why you would think that is a good thing. I was kind of baffled when I first started editing at how unstructured everything is here. But for the most part when editing articles editors don't adopt much detailed process, hierarchy, etc. It's all much more informal and even if you get some editors to agree to a process no other editors are ever required to follow it. Usually the way things work here is it's much more a bottom up way of organizing rather than the top down organization you would have on most project teams. Rather than describe a long term plan and get everyone to agree (you probably never will) to suggest and debate specific changes one at a time. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi @MadScientistX11:, well you recognised me straight away LOL! That obvious! You're right, I have found it chaotic. Yesterday I withdrew that particular proposal - there were no takers. Thanks for very good advice.

The issue is described on MH17 Talk page, Section 28, referring to more detail in Section 20, when responding to one of the users. One word appears to have caused a lot of arguments.

Wikipedia editing might not be for me. Tennispompom (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that helped. If I'm understanding correctly the concern you have is: "The template uses the phrase “reliable secondary sources”, while the policy simply states “reliable sources” I think that is a minor discrepancy. Again, it's different here than an organization with a rigid configuration management process. The various policies and templates are mostly written by volunteers working in parrallel. You won't find a rigid adherence to one standard vocabulary, people will use minor different wording as long as the idea is clear. In this case all it means is you need what Wikipedia considers wp:good sources and if an article doesn't have them then then tagging it is appropriate. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The template issue is discussed at Template talk:POV#Request for template Correction / Update in line with core policy. It's about wording in the template documentation and not what the template displays in articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Link to page I just created doesn't work

I just created a page yesterday for "Inland American Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc." If I google "Inland American wiki," a link comes up that works. However, if, once I'm on the page, I copy the url and paste it into another tab, it brings me to a page that says that there is no page in wikipedia by that name. Any ideas?

Thanks@! Mikelafrench (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse your article can be found here Inland American Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. if you copied and pasted the link into the search box then it will have included the url if you just use the article's name it works fine.Theroadislong (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

NB, I have moved the article to Inland American Real Estate Investment Trust in accordance with the naming conventions for companies.--ukexpat (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, Theroadislong.

I was unclear in my question. I'm trying to email an active link to the page; however, when I cut and paste the url into the email, the link no longer sends the user to the entry, but rather to a page that claims that there is no such entry on wiki. Mikelafrench (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!!! The link is now working.

Mikelafrench (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mikelafrench: Many email programs and other programs will try to produce a link when they see a string starting with something like "https:" without link markup, but the program has to guess where the url ends. Most programs guess that an ending period is a period after the url (as in ending a sentence) and not a part of the url. Our own software makes the same guess if a url is copy-pasted into the edit box so this fails:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inland_American_Real_Estate_Investment_Trust,_Inc.

You can work around it by percent encoding the period as %2E:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inland_American_Real_Estate_Investment_Trust,_Inc%2E

Copy-pasting from the browser address bar to a new browser tab should not have that problem but it appears from your second post that you no longer say that. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent info. Thanks.

Mikelafrench (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What Webpage do we get images from?

Sorry to disturb some of you but if i may ask, What is the link of the website With the immages for wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IMAGE. Bec2493 UKIWTWILI (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I assume you mean Wikimedia commons? This link is to the main page - just enter what you are looking for in the search box (Top RH corner) - Arjayay (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) @UKIWTWILI: Hi UKIWTWILI. Though we have local (internal) images (thus with Wikipedia URLS), I think what you're looking for is the Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository project of the Wikimedia Foundation (the foundation that also owns Wikipedia), whose images can be used here natively (i.e. they are mirrored here, and can be used with our normal file markup) and can be searched from here. The URL of its main page is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page but you can connect there from here by just typing "Commons:" into the search field + enter/return. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If you mean the domain of the actual image file (useful to know if a browser blocks it) and not the file page with other information then it is https://upload.wikimedia.org whether the file is "hosted" at Wikipedia or at Commons. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

why my article is not being published?

i am trying to publish an article which gives the information about a newly formed company but it is not being published. i have received this message "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" Ahsan Aftab Ansari (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ahsan Aftab Ansari, and welcome to the Teahouse. Not every company will have an entry in an encyclopedia, only the ones which meet the criteria for what Wikipedia calls "Notability". If the company you mention is just new, then it is very unlikely that it would be notable yet; that may have to wait until it has extensive coverage by a number of independent sources. You can read about the concept of Notability and how it is determined at Wikipedia:Notability. --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

no no bro, it is not that new, it was created in 2008 and it also known by many people. 39.44.146.8 (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The specific guidelines for whether a company is considered "notable" can be found at Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). It is about more than just being "known by many people"; "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

How can I be a host?

How can I be a Teahouse host on Wikipedia, I know Wikipedia a lot. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 01:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Allen, welcome to the Teahouse. You can join host lounge by clicking "Experienced editor? Become a host..." right on top of this page. Then it will ask you three questions. If the answer for all three questions is "Yes" then all you have to do is sign. Please make sure you are familiar with Teahouse methods. Cheers--Chamith (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm a native speaker of English and used it as my first language means I'm joining the host right now and I'm worth good at it, however I need to talk to Jethro first before I can join them. I'm still a teahouse guest and experienced about Wikipedia. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 09:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, AllenHAcNguyen. I have read your comment, and also read your user and talk pages. Thank you for editing English Wikipedia, and there are many ways that you can help out here, but I do not think that you are ready to be a Teahouse host, because of issues with your English language skills. Hosts should have a good understanding or our policies, guidelines and social norms, plus a commitment and ability to communicate these clearly, and in a friendly way. Please wait a few months, while working on your skills. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328:, thank you for your response. To usually why I don't think I'm a host at this time, because I was using English as my first and native language on Wikipedia where I used it here on the English Wikipedia (however I don't look like I'm trouble speaking English), but apparently I use the Russian Wikipedia where do I professional at Russian. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 14:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

PubMed reference template generator makes reference at the bottom repeat – DOI generator does not – recommendations? PubMed ID recommended over DOI?

I just finished watching the “Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine” introduction video, and it mentions PubMed as a good choice.

If I were to use a paper, and it has a PubMed ID, should I use that to generate a template over using a DOI generator?

Also, I have a problem with reference template generators.

The following tool allows you to input a PubMed ID: https://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi

I found that if I referenced a PubMed source again, the reference number would increment, and at the bottom, the source would appear multiple times.

This doesn’t happen with the following DOI generator tool: http://reftag.appspot.com/doiweb.py

Am I doing something wrong with the PubMed generator?

Does anyone have tool recommendations for generating a PubMed template that doesn’t have these problems?

Thanks.

Bboyjkang2 (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bboyjkang2: Hi Bboyjkang2. I really don't know as to your first question, except to say that any citation that provides good attribution to the source that allows readers to verify it is good, and the exact methodology of providing that suitable citation may be a toss up where there is more than one way. As for the latter, if you tick the box in the PubMed generator for Add ref tag, it will provide the markup for a named reference, e.g., it will generate citation template like:

<ref name="pmid25310821">{{cite journal| etc.}}</ref>.

The next time you want to use that citation, you only need type the first part – the named part – but with a forward slash before the end:

<ref name="pmid25310821" />.

This will allow you to use that citation multiple times and only have it appear once in the references section.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hatting

What exactly does hatting mean? In what circumstances can it be used?

Some of my comments on Talk page disappeared, and the word hatting was mentioned in the context.

Thanks, Tennispompom (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tennispompom: Welcome to the Teahouse. "Hatting" refers to the act of putting {{hat}} (which stands for Hidden Archive Top) around a discussion or portion of one. This is typically done when a discussion becomes unproductive or off-topic. Hope that helps. --Jakob (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted that I am the user that undid the hatting, as I felt it was inappropriate in that instance. Though hatting can be done in good nature; like hatting a single user's comment going off on a tangent about 'how Wikipedia is failing and this is why' which attracted a ton of discussion, but not related to the content at hand. Tutelary (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jakec: Thanks, I'll look it up - don't want it happening again!

Apparently I put my comment in the wrong place and messed up a sequence of responses, failed to indent bullets properly, etc. etc. It's been un-hatted now. Tennispompom (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You can often find the meaning of Wikipedia jargon by entering it in the search box after wp:. In this case there is a redirect from wp:hatting to Template:Hidden archive top. wp:hat would also have worked - via a hatnote at Wikipedia:Hatnote! PrimeHunter (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100% with PrimeHunter's advice above. The #1 tool available to the new Wikipedia editor who wishes to be productive here, is to type "WP:something" in the search box, with "something" being a Google-style keyword or two about your editing challenge. The "WP:" prefix takes you to the behind-the-scenes Wikipedia pages about policies, guidelines and respected essays about editing. The keyword helps zero in on the most useful page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Jakec:, @PrimeHunter:, @Tutelary: and @Cullen328:. I've been trying to use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Cheatsheet - can I also link to it like this WP:CHEAT? (Just tested, seems I can!) I may need something with more explanatory text, somewhere that explains concepts. It's been 15 years since I last programmed anything and even that was in low level languages. I can learn, but need an intro to concepts. Copying format/style from other users has caused problems - I'd like to see them try and survive in an unfamiliar environment like MacroAssembler. Ideas?

Secondly - is there a handy page where I can quickly learn about types of links, shortcuts, x-references, redirections, e.g. to a page, to a subheading, to a user, e.g. what's the difference between "WP:" and "H:" shortcuts, e.g. can I use a link / label on the Talk page to x-refer to something I've already answered?

I clicked on the "Help" dropdown in Edit menu but this could take me on a marathon. Tennispompom (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tennispompom:You could always start at Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and WP: are shortcuts to pages starting with "Wikipedia:" and H: shortcuts are for pages starting with "Help:". WP-pages are mostly guidelines and H-pages are more hands on advice. Best, w.carter-Talk 10:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tennispompom: Hi Tennispompom. For pages that might help with getting your feet wet in a structured manner, first I recommend tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. After going through it, you might check out Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia, which has a summary of many different areas, with lots of links to the help pages for each. Agreeing with much of the advice above, when you reach any area where you want a specific page, typing Wikipedia: (or WP:) or Help: and then appending whatever word would most intuitively describe the thing probably is a link to the guideline/help/how-to page for that thing. You want a page specifically about linking? WP:Link, WP:Links, WP:Linking, Help:Link, Help:Links and Help:Linking all go to (two different but targeted) explanatory pages. Templates? WP:Templates (etc.), redirects? WP:Redirects (etc.)

The difference between Wikipedia: vs. Help: versus others is a matter of what namespace the page is in. All encyclopedia articles do not have the namespace descriptor and are in what we call the "mainspace" (sometimes "article mainspace" or "article space"). All other pages tell you what namespace classification they are in by a specific prefix word before a colon. Please note that "WP:" is just a shortening of "Wikipedia:" (an alias that always works); I wouldn't shorten others, like h: for help:, which is not a true alias.

Regarding "can I use a link / label on the Talk page to x-refer to something I've already answered?", I'm not 100% sure I understand what you're asking, but any thread that has a section header can be linked from anywhere like this: Full name of page, followed by a hash tag (#), followed by the section header name (case sensitive). Thus, a link to this thread would be placed by: [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Hatting]]. Any such link can be piped to display something different than the link name by placing a pipe ("|") after the initial markup followed by what you want the link to display as. For example, by typing [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Hatting|Fedora]] you can make a link to this thread that displays as just Fedora.

There are some more esoteric things to know, like that even without a section header you can link in the same way if the template {{anchor}} has been placed, and that a link on the page you are linking to does not require the page's name (thus on this page, as opposed to elsewhere, you don't actually need [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Hatting]] to link to this thread, but could just use [[#Hatting]]). One other thing to note is that this page is archived periodically, which means that a link to this thread, in a few days, will be defunct as it will be at something like Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 262#Hatting, but that future link will probably work for a very long time. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all indeed, I've tried out WP: search - works great! Style manual end sections are what I was looking for. User:Fuhghettaboutit set me an exercise - to set up a link to this TeaHouse question before it gets archived - much appreciated. I'll be referring to it for a long time to come. Tennispompom (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)