Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 302

Archive 295

←

Archive 300

Archive 301

Archive 302

Archive 303

Archive 304

Archive 305

Edit on other's sandbox

Why is it not allowed to edit on other editor's sandbox? Even though it's with their permission? Sonflower0210 (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sonflower0210. I am not aware of any restriction on editors collaborating on work in a sandbox. Where did you get that information? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: There's a user/admin who's questioning me on this issue, but I'm not sure on what I'm being accused of here, since s/he didn't willing to answer my question directly despite my request to point me out to the correct policy. It maybe also because I don't understand all the wiki jargon they used all the time. Even though they know that I'm a new user and I've told them I don't understand. It seems that I'm in trouble but I don't exactly know why.

As a new user, honestly it has been quite frustrating experience here in wikipedia. From getting my opinion ignored on the discussion because they only want to talk to experienced editor, get the article that I've worked on deleted without proper explanation (only using a wiki jargon) and now being interrogated of something without any explanation. I have been trying to read wiki policies and ask around, but I hope experience editors can be more helpful by linking to the appropriate wiki policies when a mistake has been made so a new user like myself can improved themselves and not do the same mistake again. Sonflower0210 (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sonflower0210: Sorry you are having a rough time to start. One thing I would suggest is forget about starting a new article for a while. There are already so many articles in Wikipedia. It is very hard to find a subject that is truly wp:notable Also, to create a new article you really need to understand a lot about wikipedia:policies My first bit of advise is find some existing articles to edit. There are so many that are far, far from perfect and it is a lot easier to start by making small changes to those articles than to create a whole new article from scratch. Look here: Wikipedia:Community_portal and scroll down to where it says "Help Out" and you will find links to articles that need simple changes such as "Fix spelling and grammar" as well as links that say "Learn how" that will help you make those changes. Also, you might want to check out the wp:adopt a user program where an experienced editor can help you navigate Wikipedia. Good luck with the editing, hope you don't give up. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Sonflower0210. I understand the situation better now. There is an account called Hikari licht which has made only a single edit creating a sandbox page. It is highly unusual for a new account to create a sandbox page with their very first edit and then disappear. All the subsequent edits to that sandbox page have been by you. That is suspicious behavior. You say that you are doing so "with their permission" but there is nothing in your edit history or theirs that shows they gave you permission. That hints at off-Wikipedia coordination. Now, all of this may have an innocent explanation, but you have not yet explained. As for being "in trouble", no, I don't think so. But I do think that it would be wise for you to provide an explanation for this highly unusual behavior that Drmies observed. To be clear: If two editors meet here on Wikipedia, converse about a topic of shared interest, and agree to work on an article draft in a sandbox together, that is perfectly acceptable. I have done it myself in the past. But something different is going on here. Will you please tell us what it is? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. That is exactly why I keep asking on what's actually I did wrong or what policy I didn't follow. I thought the problem was because I didn't get permission so that's why I answered before that I got permission. But the person keep doubting me and challenge me while I still didn't know what the problem was or what was the real question. The person even mention to other admin that I failed a "smell test". That's why I thought I'm in trouble but noone care to explain it to me the reason. Why is it so hard to give a simple explanation on why I'm being suspected? At least just link the policy. Is it because I'm a new user so I don't deserve an explanation? Another user told me that maybe I'm suspected of sockpuppeting. But now that I know the problem was, I can answer the real question. Yes I do know this person outside of wiki. Is it not allowed to work on an draft article together if you know the person outside wiki? May I know why or can you link me the policy please? Sonflower0210 (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Since no one can really figure out what's going on here, Sonflower0210, and you have not yet explained it in a convincing way, I am not in a position to say that you have violated a policy. I think that the most likely policy at issue here is Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Let's look at the facts: Hikari licht established an account on January 22 and made one single edit on January 24. That edit simply set up a sandbox page, and every substantive content edit to that sandbox has been by you. It is highly unusual for a new account to behave this way. You are not working on the draft "together", but instead you are working on it by yourself in a sandbox of another account. What has become of Hikari licht? If you set up that account yourself, then we call that a sockpuppet account. If someone else set up the account because you asked them to, and has agreed to do what you ask them to do here on Wikipedia, then we call that a meatpuppet account. If this account exists to deceive other editors in any way, to avoid scrutiny, or to build extra support in a dispute, then it violates policy. I again encourage you to explain this highly unusual situation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how can I explain myself in a convincing way Cullen328, but I'll try to explain to you with the truth.

• Issue 1, Sockpuppet: Hikari licht account was not created by me. IP check can be done if needed
  
• Issue 2, Meatpuppet: I didn't told Hikari licht to made an account for me or to do things as I've told.
• Issue 3, "If this account exists to deceive other editors in any way, to avoid scrutiny, or to build extra support in a dispute, then it violates policy." I didn't do any of that mention, there are no dispute that I currently participated in. There are no advantage for me to create two accounts.

1. You can see it there that i put some useful link to certain wiki cheatsheet and some list of reliable sources so the user can easily access those info to get familiarized with wiki guidelines. I won't need to this if I created the account myself.
2. As drmies have mentioned before, Hikari licht made another edit on my previous sandbox that now has been deleted and the content has been included in an article. The user hasn't done many contribution, but it's only been a week since that user made an account. Even if the user won't be an active editor, Is it violate any policy to have an account but not really active?
3. I haven't work much on that sandbox. I merely put together all info from previous article that has been redirected/deleted from here [1] [2] so the user can work on it once s/he had time. Since then you can see that we haven't work on anything because that user may haven't got the time and I haven't got any more new info to add so I work on something else instead. Even if I'll be the one who'll do the most edit and that user may only have a little contribution, I don't get why this is a problem.

Moreover all of this activity happened in sandbox, it's not in real article or any involvement in a discussion. It's not disruptive to any page. Therefore I don't get why i'm under scrutiny now just because Hikari licht is not an active contributor yet, even though it's only been a week since the user join wiki. Why there are no assumption of good faith and why it's so quick to assume this is sockpuppeting Sonflower0210 (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm the owner of Hikari licht account. Sonflower0210 and I are not the same person. We're just two people who have the same interests and we agreed to work together in our sandboxes. I was not told by sonflower0210 to make this account, nor was I told to do the things she asked me to. And it's also not to deceive others. I made this account because I want to help improve the article we are working on in our sandboxes. It has only been a few days since I created this account, I'm a very new user so is it bad that I have only made 2 edits yet? I don't always have time so I created the sandbox first so sonflower0210 could start working on it first. Now that I have some free time today I'd like to work on the sandbox I created as well. Hikari licht (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia could have a place where edtiors can become friends with one another?

I think that Wikipedia could have a place where edtiors can be friends with one another. That would be sweet! Frogger48 (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Frogger48, it does. Those places are called user talk pages. If you are referring to a system with friending that would not be a good idea, since editors need to stay unbiased and edit articles objectively, not gang up on articles or subjects. But we should all endeavor to keep this a generally civil and friendly place. Best, w.carter-Talk 12:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Format problems

Hi there. I'm having format problems with the image in the infobox at Overdose (Ciara song) and I'm not sure what's wrong. Can someone please me ASAP? Thanks in advance! CoolMarc 14:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi - I think I fixed it, you had broken up the file name between two lines. Is the current edit the way you wanted it? Onel5969 (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Spent 7 Hours editing a page that I now realise was Copy & Pasted from 2 web sites. :(

I have just spent the last 7 Hours editing a page that I now realise was Copy & Pasted from 2 web sites. :( I checked the 2 web pages that were used as references AFTER I had done all this work manually. Please tell me I didn't just waist 7 hours on a page that will be deleted for CopyVio ? 121.214.61.75 (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have just added the "Db-g12" Speedy Deletion template to the page, and left the message on the creators "Talk" page.

Pays to look at the references of a page BEFORE you put a lot of time and effort into said page :( 121.214.61.75 (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you talking about the List of films banned in Chile? What exactly is copied form other sites? Both sites you cited are dead ([3] and [4]). If the list itself is copied, then I believe you should not worry. List of stuff whose inclusion criteria is clearly defined (not subjective) is not a creative work, so copying a list cannot be considered a copyright violation, as I know. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The reasons that the urls you mentioned are dead is that they started with http://www.http//www. rather than with http://www.. I've corrected those in the tags on the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Move page to wiki proper

I would like to move this user page to wiki proper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Brannon_Bates

I attempted to move it myself but it says that I do not have permission because the name is protected. I will need admin assistance. If you can help with this, please do, or, contact me on my talk page. I have been working on the page to make it acceptable. It isn't one hundred percent finished, but, it is close enough, and it is the first of the month soon, so, I would like to submit it. Johnlamint2253 (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, Johnlamint2253 - yes, you've put it in the wrong place, but you can't move it to Brannon Bates (and neither can I) because that has been salted (protected from creation) because five previous attempts have been deleted. What I have done instead is to move it to Draft space Draft:Brannon Bates, and add a tag saying that it is a draft in progress. When it is ready for review, edit it to put {{subst:submit}} in the top, and somebody will (eventually) review it, and if accepted, will move it into main space over the salting. But it's not ready for that yet: most of your references are bare URL's, which as well as being subject to Link rot, make it hard to evaluate what kind of reference they are. The previous deletions were because the attempts did not establish that Bates is notable, and because of the bare URL's it's hard to determine whether this draft does. Certainly many of the references are to unreliable sources (including iMDB), and so do not establish notabillity. Please read WP:referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

if we ask the New York Times to build / update that page if that would help with notability. Johnlamint2253 (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Johnlamint2253. I'm not saying that Bates isn't notable; just that articles about him have been deleted before, and the bare URLs you've added are hard to evaluate. It may be that there are now enough reliable sources there to establish notability. I'm not sure what you mean about the New York Times: what page are you asking them to build or update? If they choose to publish an in-depth article about Bates, that would certainly help to establish notability (though a mere listing in a directory would do little for it), but I'm not sure why you think they will listen to you. If you are connected with Bates then you certainly should read about how to edit with a conflict of interest before you touch the article again; and who are "we"? --ColinFine (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm an intern for his manager. We didn't know it was a COI. I apologize and will let them know. Thank you Colinfine Johnlamint2253 (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixing a BLP with a "reads like an advertisement" issue

Rob Shepardson is a political consultant and strategist that was instrumental in delivering the youth vote to Barack Obama. Unfortunately, the current WP page on him reads like a resume on steroids, and has had a couple of issues posted on it. Do you have any advice on how I can get it to "WP clean" status? Is it simply a matter of cutting it back to the most basic issues of notability, and deleting anything that feels like glow? 75.68.89.195 (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

First, remove any "puff" in it, and any claims which are not sourced to WP:RS sources. Then post at WP:BLP/N to get others to finish the job. Collect (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Help! my recently submitted article sounds like an advertisement, what should i do?

I recently submitted an article about one of the founders of the well known https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shashi_Sumeet_Productions but the article has been rejected a lot of times on the grounds that it appears like an advertisement, please help! here is the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sumeet_Mittal Ankyth (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ankyth. "[H]e harboured dreams of being in the entertainment industry", "where he excelled", "with the first leap", " has become a major force to reckon with", "one of the top TV content production houses" are just some of the phrases which make it read like an ad. Phrases such as these are never appropriate for any Wikipedia article, except, possibly, if they are directly quoted from a reliable published source independent of the subject. Wikipedia articles, especially those about a living person, are required to be scrupulously neutral, neither praising nor denigrating the subject. They should also consist entirely of information from reliable published sources - and almost entirely from sources unconnected with the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

i want to create a page for one of the best astrologer in india who is serving restless and people in problems with his knowledge of astrology

how can i create a page for a noble and well-renowned astrologer of India? I want to write about him, his achievements and awards, his knowledge in various fields related to astrology and prophecy, how noble work he's doing for a mankind. I'm not selling his services he is offering. i just want the other people of the world to know about him and get privilege with his knowledge at any point of time in life. guide me how to create page for him efficiently.

Thank you.

waiting for your quick response Onlinesolution24x7 (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. There are a number of useful links on your user talk page; start with Wikipedia:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Onlinesolution24x7: Hi, creating Wikipedia articles is pretty easy if you follow the guidelines. As you said he is notable there won't be any notability issues. But you must cite sources to prove that the subject is notable. And write the article in your own words, do not copy content from other pages as it is a violation of copyright. And also maintain a neutral point of view when writing content or else it might create a conflict of interest. Most important thing out of all this is citing sources. Every article on Wikipedia must have at least one reference (source) or else it will be speedily deleted. Reliable sources are very important when writing about living people. If you have any question regarding this matter feel free to ask on my talk page. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Onlinesolution24x7. Because astrology is considered a pseudoscience, a biography of an astrologer must comply with our Content guideline on fringe topics. Please be sure that your references are to reliable sources. Fringe publications are not acceptable for establishing notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Green Corn Ceremony article -expert attention

Hi. The Native American Article about the Green Corn Ceremony needs expert attentionFrogger48 (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Frogger48. Yes, that is what the tag (the box with text at the top of the article) on that article says. Tags like that are placed on articles to alert other editors that it needs to be fixed in one way or another. When tags are placed on an article, this will make them appear on different lists of articles needing attention so that editors can find them and fix the problem if they know how. You can find them all at Category:Articles needing attention. Best, w.carter-Talk 08:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

how to insert the images and what are the steps to be followed

how to insert the images and what are the steps to be followed in terms of copyrights and allscs 05:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srichirs (talk • contribs)

Hi Srichirs welcome to the Teahouse. To add images to article first you have to upload specific images to Wikipedia or its sister project Wikimedia Commons. To add images to Wikipedia you have to use Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard and to add images to commons you have to use their upload wizard. When uploading images you must tag images with proper copyright license. Otherwise it will be speedily deleted. Read Images for beginners essay for more information. After uploading image you can add them to articles by writing the follow code on that article,

[[''full pagename of your file, including "File:" prefix and file extension suffix''|thumb|alt=description of the image|''caption for the image'']]--Chamith (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Srichirs. Further to what ChamithN said, if you have an image which could plausibly be released under a free licence - if it fits the definition of public domain because it is out of copyright in both the original country and the United States, or if you took the photograph yourself and therefore own the copyright and want to release it so other people can use it too - then it can be uploaded to Commons. If it is a 'fair use' picture - for non-free content licences, you would have to fulfil certain criteria to use it successfully, which can be found on the page I linked to. It's important that you understand the implications of a free content licence (e.g. CC-BY-SA 4.0 allows people to do a lot more than you think with your work), and also important that you don't upload other people's work (e.g. film posters or images taken randomly from a Google image search) under free licensing.

Have a thorough read of all of this because it is policed quite strictly. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 10:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

What does Starts Meaning in Infobox Racing Driver

Hi Team,

Am writing an article for a Motor Racing Driver. I selected Racing Driver Template for this. Here its asking for Starts - Anybody please explain this.

Thanks Khizer91 (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Khizer91, welcome to the Teahouse. Starts means number of races, but I don't follow racing and there may be a subtle difference in what counts. For example, Jarno Trulli says "Races 256 (252 starts)". I don't know whether it means he entered four races after somebody else had started. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Jarno Trulli#Complete Formula One results shows 4 races in which Trulli did not start. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. So races without starts appears to be races where you were qualified and present but for some reason never started driving. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. If you go to 1999 Malaysian Grand Prix, for instance, you'll see that Jarno Trulli qualified in 19th position but did not start (with "engine" given as the reason). So presumably his car's engine went kaput sometime between the qualifying and the start of the race. Deor (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Uploading to Wiki Commons

Can I upload a photo from Google images to wiki commons for use on an article?

Thanks for any help :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edders527 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Usually not. Most images on the web are copyrighted and cannot be used on Commons. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Article for A Person

Hello,

I wish to write a wiki page for a local person who is to stand in the UK 2015 General Election.

The individual is a musician who is well known in the Punk Rock scene and has his own record label.

Can you please confirm whather this is likely to be passed as a notable article and also advise on where best to look to understand how to link citations etc.

Fdysuai (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fdysuai. As an unelected candidate, he does not meet our notability guideline for politicians at this time. So, take a close look at our notability guideline for musicians. Then, read Your first article. You can learn how to link citations at Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

how do i add our company to wiki?

how do i add our company to wiki? Isuzufin (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Isuzufin. The answer is, probably you don't. Wikipedia (which is not called "wiki" by the way: that would like calling your company "company") contains articles about subjects that have already been written about substantially in reliable published sources, and the articles consist almost entirely of a neutral summary of what other people have written about the subject. No unpublished information, and only the bare basics from your own sources (such as the company's website). If your company has been written about at length in major newspapers, or in books from reputable publishers, then Wikipedia may have an article about it. But if you are connected with the company, you have a conflict of interest, and may find it difficult to write in a suitably neutral tone, so you are discouraged from trying. If you want to pursue this, please read WP:CORP, and your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Citing information

I'm trying to create a Wikipedia page for a company. While I've acquired a number of good outside sources mentioning the company, I also have quite a few references going back to the company's website (their "about us" page, their "locations" page, etc.) with information that I haven't been able to find anywhere else. Is featuring the same site over and over frowned upon? Or is it favored above non-cited information?

What's the best way to go about this?

Ha.Hoffman (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ha.Hoffman. It's fine to reference the same source multiple times; but there are a couple of caveats. An article that is almost entirely based on one source (even an independent one) is not usually regarded as a good article. And wp:independent sources says: "Material available from sources that are self-published, or primary sources, or biased because of a conflict of interest can play a role in writing an article, but it must be possible to source the majority of information to independent, third-party sources" (emphasis added). If you find that you are wanting to take a lot of the material from the company's own website, I would ask the questions, "Is this company notable", and "Is the information I'm wanting to use actually appropriate for the article"? --ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat Befuddled

I made a few attempts last week to enter information on Wiki concerning recent scholarly breakthroughs the organization for which I serve as president has accomplished. These advancements are published in the literature. While we hold all copyrights, we seek no profit from these endeavors. These are simply contributions to the scientific body of knowledge. At the risk of sounding full of ourselves, the response to our works has been positive. Apparently our entries were viewed as a conflict of interest and were quickly deleted. As these are very recent developments it is unlikely anyone not affiliated with us would post them at this time. We are not spamming, or profiteering. So, for example, how would we go about placing the Vegetative Complex Health Index, a new age biometric, with related material, on Wiki without having it jettisoned to your circular file??? David Sabaj-Stahl (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, David Saba-Stahl. I'm afraid the answer if that you don't, at the moment. Wikipedia is not for announcing anything new: it makes no difference whether it is a band, a company, a product, or a scientific discovery: only once it has been written about, at length, by people unconnected with the subject, will Wikipedia take notice. Once it has been noticed by others in that way, Wikipedia can have an article about it - but people closely associated with it are likely to find it difficult to write in a sufficiently neutral way, and so are strongly discouraged from attempting to do so. And when somebody comes along wanting to write an article about their novelty, there is always a strong presumption that they are here for the purpose of promotion, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. (Note that 'promotion' is not limited to commercial topics'). Please read about notability and conflict of interest for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Signature @ Talk pages

How do you put your signature and Stamp on the bottom of Talk Pages?Dentdark (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dentdark. It is simple. The last four characters in your comment should be tildes. A tilde looks like this: ~ That will add your signature and a date and time stamp. Limit signatures to talk pages, as they should not be used elsewhere. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank You Cullen. I see that now.Dentdark (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

the Nature of Systematic Bias on Wikipedia

In regards to the Systematic Bias on Wikipedia, there is an interesting section of a book that talks about cultural bias and ethnocentrism in depth and in detail. You can read it here: "Human beings almost everywhere are ethnocentric. That is, they consider their behavior not only right, but also natural... the range of human behavior is truly enormous. For example, should you give your infant bottled formula, or should you breast-feed not only your own child, but like the Efe of Zaire, those of your friends and neighbors as well?" This being said, the individual Wikipedians own systematic biases can be difficult to see, because those individuals had these customs put in their minds from an early age, and they are unchallenged without that person seeing info that conflicts with their beliefs (ex. Slavery is wrong) that they believes to be normal (Like the customs about breast-feeding on the Efe people in Zaire from the quote above. Hopefully, the quote, as well as what is being said here can, in the future, help with the prevailing Western biases in the English Wikipedia.Frogger48 (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Frogger48. What is your question about editing Wikipedia? --ColinFine (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

How can the bias on English Wikipedia be made more nutural? Frogger48 (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Frogger48: You may be able to help by joining WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Jakob (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

We own the copyrighted material

Greetings. I am a marketing consultant asked to update a client's page.(a program for a school within a university) I've not done this before, so I need a bit of help. They suggested I set up my own account so I could post my approved copy and update as needed. A section about faculty used biographical blurbs from their web pages. My guess is that this copy was flagged as copyrighted, because my post was removed for "lack of permission." But fact is, that is our copy, we own the copyright, and I am posting on behalf of the copyright-holder. How do I document my affiliation so I am authorized to do this and where do we send it? Many thanks. JillCBaker (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@JillCBaker: Hi Jill. First, please be aware of our guideline on editing with a conflict of interest, and more critically, our mandatory disclosure requirements for paid editing (see sub-section entitled "Paid contributions without disclosure"). You can comply by disclosing through a statement on your user page.

We cannot use copyrighted material here by permission of the owners while they retain ownership under a non-free copyright license. This is impermissible because our promise to our end users is that the content they see here is freely-copyrighted under our licenses (or a compatibly unrestrictive free license) and can be taken and used by them (even for commercial purposes), so long as they comply with the attribution requirements under our licenses.

I know this may sound like a foreign language if not already familiar with the substantial complexities of copyright. The simple version is: We cannot use material by one-time permissions for use, but can only use such material if the copyright holder releases it to the world under a compatible free copyright license (or into the public domain). Most institutions would be loath to do so (and rightly-so!) but dem's the breaks. Some instructions for doing so are set forth at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

Some additional concerns: I have not looked at the content that was added, but please also be aware that material people want to use from external websites is often unsuitable anyway, often because it is written in a promotional manner. Also, it sounds like this material is content on living persons which requires citations upon being added. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The link is Terms of Use#4. Refraining from Certain Activities and there are several ways you can comply with declaring paid editing. As for the 'approved copy', your client won't have any control over this once it is posted on Wikipedia. Other editors may edit the text, or remove it if need be. That's the nature of the Wikipedia beast. Sionk (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhg and Sionk. This is extremely helpful. I was not aware of the disclosure requirement. I will abide by adding a statement to my home page. I now better understand the copyright restrictions because by posting on Wikipedia, we'd actually undermine our existing copyright and put that content into the public domain. Not what we want to do! My sense is that I will be better off on bios to simply list the name, title/role and maybe add a line of original copy -- then reference/link to the source for more detail. I realize that my "approved" contribution can be amended by others.

I'm not so worried about content being biased as I've worked in news media and know the difference between editorial and promotional writing -- and I'm not fond of first-person web writing, so I would never intentionally use it -- but I may need an assist with the sourcing. Not being an HTML expert, I followed the existing strings (swapping out URLS) to reference articles, websites, and other Wiki pages -- but I triggered some errors. The footnotes populated just fine but there were red call-outs in the Reference List. Unfortunately the page was removed before I had a chance to find out what they meant. Does Wikipedia have someone who could walk me through this or a process/mechanism to review (and fix?) what I am doing? Many thanks.

I really appreciate your help. I will read your replies more thoroughly later and visit the links you provided. Have a great weekend! JillCBaker (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, JillCBaker. I wanted to reply to one thing you said: I understand that you know the difference between editorial and promotional writing, but I'm not sure that you understand how Wikipedia articles are written (this may be my misunderstanding your words, in which case I apologise for doubting you). Wikipedia requires neutral language, based almost entirely on what reliable published sources, unconnected with the subject have written about it. "Editorial" writing suggests to me a measure of presenting arguments, evaluations, or conclusions; but that is not what Wikipedia articles do. They summarise only what the reliable sources have said: not only should they not include any unpublished information, they should not include any argumentation, evaluation, or conclusion unless the whole of that piece comes directly from a single one of the independent sources. (It's not even acceptable to deduce something from two sources taken together: that would still be synthesis, and still be forbidden).

On how to work with references, I recommend referencing for beginners.--ColinFine (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Colin -- Thank you for commenting. A matter of semantics, I think. I meant 'editorial' as in 'objective' -- not opinionated as in an OpEd piece. I tend to distinguish "editorial writing" as reporting vs "copywriting" as advertising/persuasive. I think we're on the same page. ;) Truly, what I was posting was pretty much bullet points/features ... not commentary on any of them. Not even descriptors. Just the facts. But appreciate the reminder. JillCBaker (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The above was posted in the wrong section.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Colin -- Thank you for your feedback. This is just a matter of semantics, I think. Perhaps a cultural difference? I meant 'editorial' as in 'objective' -- not opinionated as in an OpEd piece. I tend to distinguish "editorial writing" as reporting vs "copywriting" as advertising/persuasive. I think we're on the same page. ;) Truly, what I was posting was basically bullet points/features ... not commentary on any of them. Not even descriptors. Just the facts. But I appreciate the reminder and I will check out your links. JillCBaker (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Where do meta-suggestions/discussions about Wikipedia go?

I want to suggest to add to the MediaWiki a way to distinguish edits of categories (and other stuff that goes after the main article's content) and edits of the last section of the article, to which the categories (and other stuff) belongs to for technical reasons.

1. Maybe a way to distinguish already exists, then my question is: How do I do it?
2. If there is no such way: Where do I put my suggestion?
3. Maybe such suggestion was already made: Where is it/Where do I look for it?
4. Maybe there is already a consensus on this issue. Where do I read the result of the discussion?

--andrybak (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Andrybak. I think WP:Village pump/Proposals (and its archive) is what you're looking for. --ColinFine (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Linking images from different Wiki's

On the article Mayabazar, I would like to use an image from its Telugu page. Rather than upload the file again for use here, is it possible to link files from another Wiki over here? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Kailash29792: All the different language versions of Wikipedia are able to use the freely licensed images from the Wikimedia Commons, a central image repository for all Wikimedia projects. The image you describe, however, is a non-free image that is used at the Telugu Wikipedia under fair use. Because each version of Wikipedia has its own policies on fair use images, they have to be uploaded to each respective project in order to be used. So, short answer, yep; you'll have to go ahead and upload that image here, as long as it meets our own requirements for non-free pictures. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Shown redirect page, expecting disambiguation page

Hello, for a first try i'd like to create a page on the heavy metal band Visigoth but when I type "visigoth" in the search bar, I am taken to the visigoths page. I don't feel very comfortable trying to edit the redirection page and I am not sure if I should either. What to do? Thanks. --Kingrevenant (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kingrevenantt. Assuming that the band is notable, the article should be called Visigoth (band), and disambiguation can be taken care of with notes at the top of each article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

But my suggestion would be, don't worry about the title, Kingrevenant: use the WP:Article wizard to develop your article in Draft: space. When you eventually submit it for review, the accepting reviewer will move it to the proper title in main space. --ColinFine (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks cullen and colinfine I'll use the Wizard! Kingrevenant (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio-tagging bots

It's happened occasionally that while doing New Pages Patrol, I run across copyvios that have already been tagged by CorenSearchBot. Is there any point in tagging them with {{db-g12}} as well, or is that not nessecary? --Jakob (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jakec: Yes, definitely! The bot simply alerts to a possible copyright violation, and doesn't tag the page for speedy deletion. You should first check to make sure the page is actually a copyright violation (it's rare, but false positives do happen; there's also cases where the copied content is freely licensed or in the public domain, in which the copied content should be appropriately attributed to avoid plagiarism). If you confirm that it's a copyright violation, then you should tag it under G12. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that! --Jakob (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

List of compilers question

In the list of compilers page, it says the page is intended to list all current compilers. I presume you don't want just any old thing added here, but still I have written a current compiler that is production quality, is it fair to add it to this page? If so is it fair to write another page about the history and design of the compiler as well? Or does the fact it hasn't gotten a lot of attention make it too unnotable even if it does get listed on the compilers page? LADSoft (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, LADSoft. According to our Manual of Style regarding lists: "all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well."

The talk page for List of compilers has a comment going all the way back to 2008 that claims that most computer science students who take a compiler class will write a compiler. If that is even roughly true, then I feel comfortable in saying that we do not want a list of every single compiler written by every single computer science compiler student on the face of the Earth. So, what separates a compiler worthy of inclusion on the list from the bug-ridden compiler written by a student in 1978, who dropped out of computer studies after receiving a D for that assignment? We don't include original research, which means that reliable sources other than the author must have commented on the compiler. And the content must be verifiable, which means that those sources were published and can be read by anyone interested in verifying the accuracy of the list entry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I will let it be then... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.29.55.135 (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

African New Zealanders

I would like to make a page about African New Zealand history - like the African Australian page. There is only a South African New Zealand page and this is misleading as it implies that Africans were not present BEFORE South Africans came there. I want to do this because I am a NZ born African person and have lived with this misrepresentation all my life. Can you show me how to do this?Liyah66 (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Having a page on South African New Zealanders does not mean that there were no other Africans. It just means that that particular group is notable enough to warrant its own page. Arfæst! 13:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Liyah66. I suggest you read your first article, and then, if you decide to go ahead, use the article wizard to create a draft that you can work on without being interrupted.

The thing to remember, especially in a general article like this, is that Wikipedia does not accept original research. Every single statement in the article, and every single discussion, judgment, evaluation, or conclusion in the article, needs to be individually cited to a published reliable source (such as a book from a reputable publisher, or a major newspaper). The article may say that Book 1 claims xxx while Book 2 argues that yyy, but it must not make any attempt to reconcile these two (or explain the difference, or to make a judgment between them) - unless that argument is itself cited to another reliable source.

Since you say you are coming to correct a misrepresentation, do be careful that you do not omit views different from your own. I have no idea whether this subject is controversial or not; but if there is controversy about it, a Wikipedia article should summarise all views in reliable sources, not just the ones that you agree with.

Good luck! --ColinFine (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Notability of Juan Eduardo Castro dos Santos

I need help to improve the issue of notability about the article Juan Eduardo Castro dos Santos. I know that Castro belongs to the "World Head of Family Sokeship Council" [5], but this council does not admit every martial artist to be a member. They examine thoroughly every application before they accept someone. That is the best proof of notability I can come up with. The rest of the proofs are scanned copies of certificates exposed in the page [6], since these are documents that predates Internet era. If any editor is so kind to help or give me a hint I'll appreciate it very much. Palebizakis (talk) Palebizakis (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Palebizakis. I'm afraid you misunderstand the special meaning that Wikipedia has for the word "notable". It doesn't mean "important" or "famous" or even "recognised". It means that several people unconnected with the subject have chosen to write about the subject in reliable publications (such as books from reputable publishers, or major newspapers). Unpublished material such as certificates are incapable of contributing to notability in Wikipedia's sense. (The reason we insist upon notability in this sense is, I believe, that an article should be based almost entirely on what reliable independent sources have said about a subject. If there are no such sources, then there is no material which can go into the article!). --ColinFine (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox deletion

First of all, thank you for this magnificent endeavor that is Wikipedia! Two questions:

I began working in draft mode, and my work (considerable hours, I must say) was deleted because I inadvertently did not follow some of the rules;

...which brings me to my second question:

1) Is my sandbox also at risk of being deleted? ( I copy my code offline, nevertheless, to be on the safe side) 2) What might i expect to happen when I click on "Submit your draft for review"; will I have a chance to correct errors in Wiki protocol?

Mlaucke (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Michael. As a rule, material in Draft: space or a sandbox will not be deleted (or, usually, even edited) by others unless it is an urgent problem: generally only a copyright violation or a personal attack. Having said this, I suggest you take the advice that Theroadislong has put on your talk page, and stop trying to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. --ColinFine (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your account User:Mlaucke has not edited any deleted pages. Your only edits are to User:Mlaucke/sandbox, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guests/Right column and this page. If you have worked on another page then it must have been with another account or logged out or you never saved it. You can continue to work on a page after submitting it. If it's declined then you usually get a chance to improve and resubmit it. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

"Own work"

On Commons, user Bioasia2013 has uploaded an image of N. T. Rama Rao claiming it to be his own work. This is heavily unlikely to be his own, as the photo looks like it was taken in the 60's (when the user was not born) and he has not provided a proper source for it. Currently, the user is blocked as a sockpuppet of some other user, and is there any way to tag the image for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailash29792 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion here. Next time, just go to the image on Commons, and click "Nominate for deletion", last item on the right toolbar. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding sports seasons pages.

Hello!

Looking through the team pages for the 2015 MLB season, I've noticed that no two pages have the exact same sections and format. However, most of these sections are already developed and I don't want to tamper with any of them unnecessarily. But perhaps that's just me being paranoid. Would it be fine if I were to reformat all 30 pages so all their sections are the exact same? Or should I create the pages for the 2016 season and make them the way I want to. Thanks!

Best, chaguy2457 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaguy2457 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If in doubt, it's probably safest to discuss the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyrighted work

Hi, I've had my first article (a biography) refused as it contains "copyrighted work". However, for the life of me I cant see how it does? Any tips appreciatedTonyBrowne174 (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The deletion log for the draft which was deleted tells you which web page the copyright violation was from. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Article Review

Hey Teahouse, I was wandering whether someone (or more) could look at the article I'm creating in my sandbox. I'd appreciate the feedback of other editors. Thanks, Skate Shady - talk to me 15:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's the link, [[7]] Skate Shady - talk to me 16:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Skate Shady your article has enough sources to support it but it lacks content. Almost every section contains one paragraph only. I think you should seek feedback after adding more content to the article or when you are about to submit it. That way we can give it a quick review and help you out. For now I'll fill those bare references for you. Cheers!-Chamith (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your attempted link above is broken. You were probably trying to link to User:Skate Shady/sandbox. You'll find information about linking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you submit your sandbox for review

How do you submit your sandbox for review so that the page, if it is good enough, can be made into a new page? Dentdark (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. When your draft is ready for review you can submit it by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. Before you do that, however, you need to read the links in the welcome message on your user talk page, and particularly WP:Your first article. You need to understand the need to demonstrate notability by references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Kinfolk rewrite: what next?

I've substantially rewritten and reorganised the Kinfolk (magazine) article to make it appear less like an advertisement. Is there a process for getting the article re-evaluated and the banner taken down, or is this just something that happens automatically over time? VagrantDarter (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, VagrantDarter. There's nothing automatic about tags like that: they're placed, and removed, by people when they think it is appropriate. You could have removed it yourself (though it's not a bad idea to ask somebody else to have a look). I've removed it - but I've added another tag, because there are several pieces of information in the article which are unsourced, so I've added {{ref-improve}}. I've also edited the link above, so that it goes straight to the article, rather than to a disambiguation page.--ColinFine (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

external link does not work in all browsers

The editor deleted my note that an external link works in Firefox. It did not work for me in Safari. I did not try in Google Chrome nor Internet Explorer. How may I help the public avoid frustration? AgedCare14 (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello AgedCare14. As WP:BROWSER says, "There is no perfect browser for viewing Wikipedia." It is best to select external links which are compatible with a wide range of popular browsers, but this is not always possible. It is not practical for you to try to help readers avoid frustration completely in such cases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added links in articles that have a "see also" section. How may I add this section to other appropriate articles? AgedCare14 (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@AgedCare14: I'd be care adding this link to too many articles -- generally the use of see alsos is pretty limited. But if you truly believe that is important for readers of a certain article to see further reading about Alfred Worcester, you can create a see also section by adding the text ==See also== at the bottom of the article, before the references. And under that section heading, put an asterisk and the link to Alfred Worcester. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Suspected factual inaccuracies of global proportion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asian_countries_by_GDP

So East Timor is where the wealthiest asians are? North Korea's economy is bigger than South Korea?

I think all of this data was scrambled from the source, some loosing or gaining 2 decimal places - in short, the page is useless

Almcld (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The sooner WP realises it is incapable of maintaining these sorts of pages and bans them, the better. I've tried to patrol a number of similar pages and, even when first created and sourced to a reliable source, they're pretty useless (might as well just include a "Please see CIA Factbook" note). Then, after time and casual/POV editors get their hands on the article, it's game over (and that ignores outright vandalism).

In this case, the data has apparently been updated using other WP pages,[8] by an account set up purely to do this.[9] Sure, that WP data apparently originated from the IMF, but the scope for error is huge (which is why we're not allowed to do it). Then, Israel & East Timor are added, probably accurately as the one East Timor figure I checked agreed to the source WP page.[10] Then it's deliberately vandalised by an IP editor to make the point that the data is incorrect,[11] A normal Wikipedian kindly reverts one of the adds by that IP editor,[12] but misses the earlier one that messed with the data. Now the article is meaningless, and remains that way for two months to today, at which point at least 2 editors (youself and me) have noticed the error but not corrected it.

Anyway, as you can see, this is one of my bugbears about WP :) . I avoid correcting this sort of article because the low level of patrol and ease of IP editing makes it a pointless task. Bromley86 (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't it at least give a specific IMF document as a source? Keith McClary (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Keith McClary: It should -- please help improve Wikipedia by adding a link to the source if you are familiar with it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for review : Draft:Ed DeCosta

Hi guys.

My article was recently declined but was given very valuable feedback by the admin who reviewed it. I took his pointers by heart and made every effort to improve the manner of writing, formatting, references and content of the article. He was very supportive and even researched for citations to help me out.

I wanted to get as much feedback as I can so I can improve the article more and get it approved as I truly believe that the subject should be on wiki. I was hoping to request for your time to review the changes I have made and provide feedback on improvement. I understand you are busy with a handful of edits but I am humbly requesting for a hand. Thank you so much Pmanz2014 (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pmanz2014: This article still relies much too heavily on sources connected to DeCosta, and several of the other remaining sources are unreliable blogs. I would recommend massively paring back the article (to 25% of its current length or so), removing the vast majority of references and keeping only the best ones (like the Kirkus review), and then we can see what remains. Right now the piece looks like promotion and I have significant doubts about the notability of the article subject. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have previously given advice on this draft, and I agree with Calliopejen1. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Addition to the Urdu Wikipedia

I edited a page about fatima Jinnah in urdu.after how long wikipedia will show my edit,still not showing--Shehzana arshad (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. This page is about the English Wikipedia. Your contributions to the Urdu Wikipedia are listed on this page, which hopefully you will be able to understand. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Shehzana arshad: Your edit summaries said "Added content" but no real content was added in your edits. Only blank lines and punctuation was changed.[13] PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Word of the Day

Is it possible to have the Word of the Day displayed on my user page? (Just like the Picture of the Day)Rocketmaniac2 (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Rocketmaniac2 hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I moved your question to the top of the page for better visibility. Hopefully someone who knows the answer will be able to see it here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rocketmaniac2: Wikipedia does not have a feature called Word of the Day. Are you thinking of wiktionary:Wiktionary:Word of the day? Wiktionary is a dictionary and one of our sister sites. Pages cannot be transcluded on other wikis so you cannot display Wiktionary's Word of the day on your Wikipedia userpage. You can display it on your Wiktionary user page if you create one at wiktionary:User:Rocketmaniac2 and write {{Word of the day}} there. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

LOL, that's why even trying 15-20 different ways of spelling everything I failed. Thanks for your info. Rocketmaniac2 (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)