Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 418

Archive 415

Archive 416

Archive 417

Archive 418

Archive 419

Archive 420

→

Archive 425

Feedback to User:Stephenjonathansandmann

I reviewed User:Stephenjonathansandmann/sandbox, moved it to Draft:AutoTrader.co.za, but declined it as not having enough references to verify satisfaction of corporate notability guidelines. Either the author then created another copy of it in their sandbox over the redirect that was left behind, or a glitch created two copies of it. I reviewed it again and said that it was a duplicate of the preferred submission in draft space. I have been asked on my talk page for feedback, and would like the comments of other experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I have noticed that it is not uncommon for an author, when a draft is moved into draft space but declined, to create another draft in user space. I assume good faith and assume that this is done out of unfamiliarity, but I find the creation of multiple copies of a draft of an article to be troublesome. The drafts are not in sync, and, if a declined copy is in draft space, it prevents the moving of another draft into draft space. (It may be an attempt to game the system, but I am willing to assume unfamiliarity.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Will other editors please comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon. I don't think people are trying to game the system. I've seen second and even third copies of articles inside the same draft article. Editors just aren't familiar with how the process works. They do need to get down to one copy however, for the reasons you mention. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure, @Robert McClenon:? Looking at the history of User:Stephenjonathansandmann/sandbox, I can't see any sign of it having been moved to Draft:AutoTrader.co.za. I think that the draft in draft space was moved by you from the user's previous incarnation at User:AutoTraderSA/sandbox, and that's what might have caused the confusion. I'm certainly prepared to assume good faith. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Are there any comments to the author about what is needed to bring the draft to where it is ready for acceptance? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Stephenjonathansandmann, I would like to see a bit more evidence of coverage in third-party sources in order to establish notability. You might use this this, this and this. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation template question

Hello help solvers,

I am having trouble with a page that keeps getting this template disclaimer at the top which says:

"This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful."

How do I get this warning template deleted? When I insert the citations for the information (which is from the source himself) I'm still seeing this notification? There's no way I can get this information from another source as I'm directly taking it off of a cv and from the individual directly.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.3.80 (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Those templates are placed and removed manually, not automatically, which is why it remains even when you add citations. If you let us know which article you are referring to, perhaps someone can consider removing the template for you. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

In addition, you should keep in mind that the subject of the article is considered a "reliable source" only for a very limited type of information. Almost all content needs to be verifiable has having been published by third party reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft: help!

Hello,

I've submitted and article for publication and would appreciate feedback or help with improvements!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Camden_Collective

Thank you!

Nw1cmdn (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nw1cmdn, the thing I would do is explain a little more about what the project actually is and does, probably in the lead. Other than that, it looks pretty good. And by the way, you can link to the draft this way: Draft:Camden Collective by using double brackets rather than an external link. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 15:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nw1cmdn: I have accepted the article and published it into the main article space. You can find it at Camden Collective. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! Continue to improve the article by expanding it and adding references to reliable sources that verify the content. Keep in mind White Arabian Filly's advice about the lead section. I would also provide some more context over what the partner organizations do. To people unfamiliar with Clime-it Brothers, it is hard to guess what that organization does just from their name. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

How do I disable Media Viewer? (as guest)

I am a guest user of wikipedia. I prefer the old style media pages, so I tell it to disable Media Viewer. But it keeps forgetting that I disabled it. Sometimes it might take a couple of weeks, sometimes I have to tell it more than once per day to disable Media Viewer, even without a browser restart. I always use en.wikipedia.org via https. So how do I make this setting stick? This person seems to have the same problem as me: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T85923 70.74.254.241 (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You can create an account, and then you can customize your Wikipedia experience. Creating an account also improves personal security and safety, improving your anonymity by hiding your IP address from public view. It's free and takes very little time. --Jayron32 04:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I know I can create an account, but that doesn't answer my question. I disabled Media Viewer as a guest a long time ago and it stayed disabled for a long time. Then it started re-enabling itself and is doing that more and more often, again to the point where I sometimes have to disable it more than once a day. Something is broken here and I would like to know what it is.

70.74.254.241 (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not at the Wikipedia server end, it's your browser that is not "remembering" your preference. Creating an account is the solution. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This is far from my expertise, but have you examined your browser's security settings? It may be that lowering them, making sure cookies are not purged and so forth will help the issue. You might try asking about this at the computing section of the reference desk (stating what browser you are using) for far more expert advice.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

it is my understanding (based on nothing whatsoever that I can link to), is that IP users cannot store preferences to persist beyond their current session. That is a feature only for actual accounts. the "default" preferences, including the new media viewer, will be applied every new session to every IP user. so the only alternatives to creating an account are to permanently keep a browser window open in which you have set the session preferences you desire and do your wikipedia media viewing through there or reset your preferences whenever you browse to wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

In a sense the problem is "at the Wikipedia server end", in that Media Viewer is enabled by default for everyone, and must be disabled manually by every user who finds it obnoxious. (Many users do indeed find it obnoxious, and/or took issue with the Wikimedia Foundation rolling it out enabled by default without there having been any attempt to establish community consensus for whether it should be the default.) Unfortunately, the only workaround currently is to create an account, disable Media Viewer, and stay logged in. But creating an account is free and easy and does not require you to give up any personal information, so that might be your best option, 70.74.254.241. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 20:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD: the problem occurs within the _same_ browser session. No change in my IP, no clearing of cookies. I disable media viewer at say 1PM and then an hour later, still sitting at the computer computering away, no restart, using the same brower process, maybe even still browsing wikipedia(!), media viewer is somehow re-enabled.

70.74.254.241 (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:DETIboot

I declined Draft:DETIboot (after moving it to draft space). My analysis was that all of the references were to papers by the developers, and that this did not independently establish notability. The author, User: Avzuquete, has posted to my talk page asking for advice: When you say "Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable", I can think on two different ways to tackle this requirement: (1) add more references or (2) fix some problems with the existing ones. The first option, unfortunately, is not really an option, because we added all the references we have to our work/contribution/solution. The second option could be the access to the referred publications, which in some cases may not be accessible to everybody (some are provided through Web pages of publishers, such as ACM or IEEE). Is this the problem? We need to improve the access to the content of the the referred articles? All the articles, or just our own, describing DETIboot? I wasn’t saying to improve the quality of the referred publications or to make the referred publications more accessible. My reply would be to find independent reliable sources, not associated with the developers or vendor. It appeared to me that the papers were all by persons connected with the product. (If not, maybe I was mistaken.) I am asking for comments by other experienced editors. What can the author do to improve the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

All but one of the cited references appear to be the work of Carlos Faneca, with or without co-authors. Draft:DETIboot doesn't explicitly say that Carlos Faneca, is a creator or co-creator of DETIboot, but at the least he is from the same institution where it was created. I agree that there is a need for independent reliable sources to establish notability before this draft can be approved. Avzuquete should read Your First Article and the Golden Rule of Wikipedia. As per WP:PAYWALL it is not a problem that some of the sources are not available free of charge to anyone. If in fact no one but the creators has written about DETIboot, it is not (yet) notable and cannot, (yet) have an article on Wikipedia, no matter how many references to the publications of the creators are cited. DES ^(talk) 00:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Can some see how this article I created is criteria for speedy deletion? What should I do?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Lim DollyDecadence (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DollyDecadence. The article in question is an unreferenced biography of a living person, which is contrary to policy. You must provide references to reliable sources unaffiliated with this person which devote significant coverage to this person. This is mandatory. Please read Your first article for additional advice. The article also needs to be written from the neutral point of view, and all claims of notability must be properly referenced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

How to Email an Editor/User?

Hello, I saw on part of Wikipedia's site, the recommendation to email an editor or user for greater privacy. I didn't see any instructions on that, however. How do I go about that, please?TheRealReel (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello TheRealReel and welcome to the Teahouse. Information on this can be found here: Wikipedia:Emailing users. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 08:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, TheRealReel. If you go to another editor's page, such as User:Cordless Larry, you'll see an "Email this user" link in the menu on the left of the page (if that user has registered an e-mail address and has the feature enabled, that is). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Pic of the page

Can anyone help to get a free use pic for the actress Yasemin Allen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowpokeking (talk • contribs) 17:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I did a quick search and there's none on Commons and none on Flickr; no results on Google seem free. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Then what should I do? I'm new here. Slowpokeking (talk • contribs) 18:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If an image with a compatible licence isn't available, then there might not be much that you can do, Slowpokeking, short of taking one yourself. It's certainly not compulsory for articles to be illustrated with images, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Find a place where she is doing a public appearance, take her photo, donate it to Wikimedia commons. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

We can either a) try to take such a photo by ourselves as TRPoD suggests, or b) wait for someone else to take such a photo and release it under a free license, or c) ask copyright holders to release some of their photos under a free license. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I could do it, she lives in TurkeySlowpokeking (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

We can't use the pic on the IMDB page? Slowpokeking (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You'll note that the bottom of every page on IMDB states "Copyright © 1990-2015 IMDb.com, Inc.". What is needed is an image with a licence compatible with Wikimedia Commons policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask IMDB for them to release it? Slowpokeking (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but you could also try beating your head on the wall which would have the same chances. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Slowpokeking, big media organizations seldom give up rights. But individual (professional) photographers sometimes do, because (most of) our licenses have the advantage that the creator of the image has to be credited whenever the image is published anywhere. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 19:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there any other way to make it? Slowpokeking (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Which one can we ask? I know the actress' twitter but I don't want to bother her Slowpokeking (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You could ask anyone who owns a photo of her to release it under an acceptable licence, Slowpokeking. That's the only option left as I see it, short of being able to take one yourself. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone mind ask her on twitter about it?Slowpokeking (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no rule against asking the subject of a BLP article for an image of themselves, Slowpokeking. However, you will need to bear these issues in mind:

• Giving permission for an image to be used just on Wikipedia is useless; permission must allow for anyone to use the image for any purpose, including modifying the image or making a profit off it.
• The person in the photo (Yasemin Allen in this case) is usually not the copyright holder, unless they took the photo of themselves (e.g. a "selfie"). The copyright holder, not necessarily the person in the photo, is who needs to give permission.
• If the copyright holder does not create an account and upload the photo themselves, they will need to go through a process called an OTRS ticket which involves them sending email to Wikimedia Commons's OTRS staff giving their permission with specific wording. It's easier for the copyright holder to upload the image themselves and use a simpler declaration via that process, but some people do still find the upload process complicated and confusing.

Good luck, and feel free to return to the Teahouse with any further questions. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

So what's the best way to get one other than shoot a pic myself? I can't find any photographer Slowpokeking (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The Teahouse is a place to learn about editing Wikipedia, Slowpokeking, and we're not experts in how to source a photo of an actress. The only way I can think is to contact her yourself, or find a photo online and contact the copyright holder. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

KK, thanks for the help Slowpokeking (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry, TheRedPenOfDoom: Just for future reference, the vast majority of photos and posters you see on IMDb are not owned by it but by their contributors and are displayed there under license. See, e.g., this page explaining to contributors the upload process, where they are even given the option to display a copyright notice if they want. If you click on the linked word copyright at the bottom of any page, the terms of use come up and state "All content included on this site... is the property of IMDb or its content suppliers..." (emphasis mine). Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit. I did wonder about that and thought it was unlikely that the photos were all IMDB's own. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Help Me! The reference on the LPS: Popular disappears! How can I prevent the reference from disappearing?

Hi, The reference on the LPS: Popular page disappears, once I putted the reference it disappears! Help! MochaMilk (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, MochaMilk, and welcome to the Teahouse. The problem with that reference is that it was the show's own web page, which is hardly an independent, reliable source to support statements such as "The show is a YouTube phenomenon" with "its realistic interpretation of high school", which "garnered comparisons to such TV shows and movies as 90210 and Mean Girls". These are all quite promotional statements, which may be acceptable if they are quotes from a review in a reliable source - but they need to be what somebody else says about the show, not what its own makers say about it on their web site. You need to find references in major newspapers and magazines etc, as described in this article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If the source concerned is lpspopular.wikia.com/wiki/LPS:_Popular, which was removed in this edit, I don't think that is the show's own web page, but it is a Wikia article. As user-generated content, it's not considered reliable for the purposes of Wikipedia articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That page is also a blatant copyright violation, although a fixable one since the Wikia page is CC-BY SA 3.0. I will fix that shortly. MochaMilk: In general you cannot copy and paste (or closely paraphrase) any copyrighted content into a Wikipedia article but for short quotes under fair use, marked as such using quotation marks, in-text attribution and providing an immediate inline citation to the source. For content that is usable under a free and compatible copyright licenses, as this material is, you must strictly comply with the copyright license, just as people re-using Wikipedia content are required to give attribution to Wikipedia's authors and state the license their reuse is made under. This translates to an attribution edit summary and a notice in the article, which you will see in a few minutes there.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

additional citations for verification & general notability guideline

I recently updated an article on George Barber (artist) from the previous version, adding more information and additional sources. However, I keep getting a message about the article's additional citations for verification & general notability guideline. I am not sure what exactly is wrong with the article and how to fix it. Thank you. Tramnguyenp (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tramnguyenp: If you have fixed the problem sufficiently, you can remove the tags yourself. There's a tag at the top of the article which looks like this in the edit window:

{{Multiple issues|
{{BLP sources|date=November 2015}}
{{notability|date=November 2015}}
}}

If you just remove all of that, the tag will go away. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 12:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:The RAF Masirah & RAF Salalah Veterans Association

I declined Draft:The RAF Masirah & RAF Salalah Veterans Association after moving it to draft space. The only references that I saw were to its own web site and its Facebook page. The author, User: Mikecasey52, has asked why I rejected his article. Can some other experienced editor comment, possibly to explain the need for the reliable sources to be independent? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done by Timtrent (talk · contribs). See Special:Diff/691468925. Mz7 (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Continuing to resubmit an article with trivial changes but without addressing the issue (lack of independent references) is tendentious editing. It annoys the reviewers and may result in a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Adventure Getting Stuck on Automated Messages

Whenever I try to do TWA, it either gets stuck on the Hello World automated message, or the View Your New Message, and not continuing. In the case of the View Your New Message, it keeps on posting the contents of the message to the talk page, which I have cleared. I have tried on Chrome and Firefox, neither of which, when it gets stuck give an error message. Can someone help me? JumpiMaus (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Click {x} on that pop-up, then go to your talk page. Scroll until you see the message of TWA. Click Mission2, and there is the continuation. Good luck! 4ChanX (talk)

Hi JumpiMaus, welcome to the Teahouse. The Wikipedia Adventure currently appears to be broken, at least in Firefox and maybe all browsers. If you skip steps or missions as suggested by 4ChanX then it may soon get stuck again. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, I posted a message at Village Pump-Technical describing the bug reports both here and at TWA talk page. There is now a message posted at TWA page - There is currently a critical bug which makes TWA unplayable. We are working to fix it ASAP. Thanks for your understanding. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem has been fixed. The Wikipedia Adventure now works again. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Company profile

Can I publish an article about my workplace (company profile)? NehaJ23 (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, NehaJ23, and welcome to the Teahouse. You should be wary of creating an article about your employer, because you are likely to be perceived to have a conflict of interest. Please take a read of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for our policy on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, NehaJ23. If you do decide to go ahead with creating an article about your workplace (which, as you see from the link Larry gave you, is discouraged but not forbidden) it might be helpful to realise that Wikipedia does not contain profiles, but neutrally written articles; and that Wikipedia has almost no interest in what you, or the company, say or want to say about it: Wikipedia is only interested in what people unconnected with the company have said about it (published in reliable places). If you can't find enough material about it from indepedent reliable published sources to ground an article, then the company is not notable, and an article on it, however written, will not be accepted at present. --ColinFine (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Wonder if I can tag onto this conversation? There is an article on Wikipedia about my employer, whilst factually correct it is sparse in its detail of which there is more that can be said, with appropriate citations/references, etc.

I have read the conflict of interest article (several times!). If I or any of my colleagues have information rather than add it ourselves, through an account or anon, are we able to propose or provide the information to an independent source to do so?

How can we be guaranteed it will be published? And how do we go about asking that source to publish? Do I generate a conversation on the individuals talk page?

Look forward to a reply with thanks. Tonypinkney (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Tonypinkney, and welcome back to the Teahouse. There's no way to guarantee that an uninvolved editor will make the changes you propose — often proposed edits from users with COI lack sufficiently-reliable or -independent sources, for example, which would be a valid reason for another editor to decline to make suggested edits — but the appropriate method is to leave a message on the article's talk page. You should make a new section (call it Proposed edits November 2015, or something like that), and post the text of the proposed edits along with all the metadata for the sources for each fact in the proposed edits. By "metadata" I mean that you should include, in addition to the URL (for online sources): the title of the article, book or webpage; the name of the author(s) (if given); the name of the editor(s) (if given); the name of the magazine, newspaper or website (if applicable); the publisher (for book sources); the page number (if any); and the date of publication (if given). You're welcome to leave a comment here at the Teahouse after you have posted to the article's talk page, so one of us volunteers can either double-check that you included the necessary information, make the edits, or both. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

how to change the artical name?

how to change the artical name?212.35.5.181 (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. Articles are technically moved to a new title, but the result is that the same article has a new name. However, only autoconfirmed editors can move articles. If you tell us what article you want to change, and what title you think it should have, we will be better able to help you. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox Template

Hello! I was wondering how the infobox template was decided on for certain articles. More specifically, I have noticed that many biblical figures do not have infoboxes. For example, I was going to add an infobox to Job (biblical figure) but was not sure which template to use. I see that the saint template is used in Jonah. However, at least in my experience, I usually hear Jonah referred to as simply a Bible character and not necessarily a saint. I was curious to know if there are specific guidelines for infoboxes in biblical figures' articles. Thanks! Rimmel.Edits Talk 23:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rimmel.Edits, I think it's mainly up to the discretion of the editor who adds the infobox. However, I believe there's some kind of Bible WikiProject, which you may be able to locate here. They would undoubtedly know and be happy to help you. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, Rimmel.Edits, no figures from what Christians call the Old Testament are Christian saints. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, White Arabian Filly! And thank you, GrammarFascist. That is what I was thinking and why I was a bit confused about Jonah having a saint template. Also, does the type of infobox matter all that much? I'm fairly new to the Wikipedia community so I'm still learning the ins and outs! Rimmel.Edits Talk 18:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, and no, I don't think that the type of infobox matters all that much to the casual encyclopedia reader. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 18:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking for a project

Hallo everyone,

I am looking for a new Wikipedia project.

I am really only interested in editing business related articles at the moment.

Is anyone aware of an article that needs a major overhaul? I do have expertise in the field and I am willing to do research to ensure the best citations.

I am looking for something that can really add value, instead of a number of small edits. There are already many people doing a great job with those. I want to do a few rewrites before considering submitting an original article.

Happy editing!

Adel

Adel Steyn (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Adel Steyn, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a list of business-related articles needing attention at Wikipedia:WikiProject Business#Open tasks. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Larry!

I am heading over there now.

Adel

Adel Steyn (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Good to hear, Adel Steyn. If you find that the list is too short, then you could always ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business whether any members of that project have any suggested articles. WikiProjects in general are a good place to go for that kind of advice, since many of their members have good knowledge of the state of articles across specific subject areas. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Editing an article - conflict of interest

Hi Rich Farmbrough. I have read a few of wikipedias guides including the conflict of interest. There is a relatively new article on Wikipedia about my organisations founder that whilst accurate, lacks detail. I understand that it is 'frowned' upon for someone associated with a person/company, etc to edit these articles. My question is how can I (or any of my colleagues) propose some changes? Do we open the Talk page on the specific article site and hope that someone will take notice or is there someone we can go to do make these changes? The proposed changes are from verifiable sources. Look forward to a response. Regards. Tonypinkney (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Tonypinkney. Did you mean to post this message at User talk:Rich Farmbrough? This is the Teahouse, where you can ask questions about editing Wikipedia. We can help you, but you need to tell us which article you are referring to. The procedure for suggesting changes on article talk pages is outlined at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#COI editing strongly discouraged, and it sounds like that is what you are looking for. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Cordless Larry No, my question was for anyone really, just trying to be polite as Rich was signed as the host. The article in question is Stelio Stefanou this one. Hope I've linked this right! Tonypinkney (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Tonypinkney, and for being upfront about your conflict of interest. It looks like you are getting help with the article now, but do post here again if you have any further questions. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Tonypinkney and welcome to the Teahouse. You linked the article just right. And your comment that the article "lacks detail" can't be argued. Your first priority should be to find references to him in reliable, independent sources, preferably ones that discuss him in some depth. Your connection with this person is not direct: as I understand it, he founded the company but has since sold it (right?) In that case, I don't see any problem with fleshing out the article with information that is well-supported by good references. To cover all the bases, it would be a good idea to use the {{connected contributor}} template to disclose on the article's talk page, and a brief description of what your connection is should make it clear that it's fairly indirect. You should also disclose your connection on your own user page.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Gronk Oz Useful information. It's actually the organisation he has set up recently rather than the company now sold, although, again that could do with more info, plus other personal details that need updating and stating. I am certain I or others can provide adequate sources of reliable info. Am I right in saying that it wouldn't be unreasonable to edit the page so long as I am fair, neutral and declare my interest? Thanks for the assistance. Tonypinkney (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood, Tonypinkney - you are right to be cautious if you work for the guy. I have plugged a couple more details into that article now, and I can see the organization you probably work for. I would appreciate a more experienced editor's comment on this - my approach would be that you're probably okay to provide straightforward facts (well referenced, of course!), but if there is anything that might be questioned you would be better to raise it first on the article's Talk page. Provide the references, and explain why you think they are relevant, and leave it up to somebody more independent to take it from there. That's my view, but I am learning that the world (even Wikipedia) does not always work according to what I think - do any other Teahousers have comments to offer?--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tony! Pragmatically you are probably OK to do as User:Gronk Oz suggests. You can add the content to the draft page if you are unsure, and get help from another Wikipedian using the {{Help me}} template (just add {{Help me}} on a talk page, and someone will be along in a while).

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC).

Regarding a statement made by Tonypinkney, it is not true that Rich Farmbrough "was signed as the host". I think the main page of The Teahouse shows a host, and which host is shown varies. And that person might not even be there at the time.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I presumed that Tonypinkney was referring to the named host at the top of this page, Vchimpanzee. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I figured you knew, but this is of course a page for those who don't know such details.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:CirrusPoint

I declined Draft:CirrusPoint, saying that it needed additional references to address corporate notability guidelines. I was asked on my talk page by its author, User:NMSWizard, to explain. I am bringing it here for the attention of other experienced editors, either to explain what needs to be done or to say that it should be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it here, I know the smartsblog reference is genuine, and the OSS reference that links to Open Source Integration is a viable reference. Please review these and accept my page.NMSWizard (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, NMSWizard, and welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to have misunderstood what Wikipedia considers a reliable source and/or what kinds of sources can be used to establish notability as Wikipedia defines that term. Briefly, sources need to be independent of the subject, be from a reliable publication, and have covered the subject to a substantial degree. The links I just added explain this in more detail. Looking at the sources you provided, here is what I see:

• LinkedIn is user-generated content and cannot establish notability
• CirrusPoint's own website cannot establish notability
• Smartsblog is a blog; blogs are not reliable sources and cannot establish notability
• Digitage (listed as "OSS Integration") merely mentions CirrusPoint; mere mentions cannot establish notability
• CirrusPoint's own website cannot establish notability
• Salesintel only provided a profile which may have been supplied by CirrusPoint and cannot establish notability
• Evanta (listed as CIO Executive Summit) only provided a profile which may have been supplied by CirrusPoint and cannot establish notability
• Innovation Enterprise only provided a profile which may have been supplied by CirrusPoint and cannot establish notability
• TDWI (listed as Advanced Analytics and Data Visualization) merely mentions CirrusPoint; mere mentions cannot establish notability

Try looking for articles in newspapers or magazines which discuss CirrusPoint. If no such articles have yet been published, then it may be too soon for Wikipedia to have an article about the company. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The article is clearly promotional.

Nothing in the article, or the references, indicate that the company has done anything note-worthy, or news-worthy, such as creating a new technology or anything beyond providing services to its customers. The references are nearly all to user-generated content. The other references either do not mention Cirrus at all and only discusses the industry, or mentions Cirrus as a previous sponsor (i.e. paid advertiser).

The article has been turned down by three editors. I realize this may sound tough, but this user is just going to keep submitting even though the article and the company is clearly not notable. The best solution may be not to engage with this user. It is not a productive use of time, which could have been spent reviewing other articles.

Adel Adel Steyn (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Judging notability solely by what references a brand-new editor has included in a draft can be misleading, Adel Steyn, because such editors often don't understand the importance of citing secondary sources and may think primary sources would be preferred. Many times I have looked at a draft that had no usable references for notability, yet was quickly able to add three or more independent sources from reliable publications that discussed the subject in depth.

Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the situation in this case. I spent some time Googling, but turned up no useful results even going back to the fifth page of web search results, and there were no results at all on Google News or Google Books. NMSWizard, I'm afraid that until third-party sources find CirrusPoint worthy of more than a passing mention, there cannot be a Wikipedia article about the company. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, GrammarFascist. One cannot judge the importance / value of an article purely by the efforts of an inexperienced editor. However, I also considered the bigger picture before coming to my conclusion here. The solution / product provided by CirrusPoint is a data-management system, which appears to be closely related to SEO - an industry with a less than stellar reputation.

Even if the subject were notable, the article would be a stub at best. It is reminiscent of a listing in a business directory. I would also feel more comfortable if the author disclosed his / her relationship to the company. However, the author (NMSWizard) does not seem to have created a user page yet.

My comments related more to what I think one ought to do if resubmissions start rising to the level of spam. Two editors had already provided links to Wikipedia's guidelines on the notability of organizations / companies, as well as to guidelines on what constitute reliable sources. Robert also provided these resources, for a third time, yet the author still requests an explanation.

The author resubmitted the article on three consecutive days without any significant edits. This in itself makes me wonder why the author is so invested in this particular article.

My personal opinion and advice, although anyone is free to disagree or to act otherwise, is that engaging is unlikely to be helpful / lead to a positive outcome and that, as a result of this, one's time and effort is better invested elsewhere. Adel Steyn (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Advice to User:Ropege About Professional Preparation Assistance

I declined Draft: Pem Gerner at Articles for Creation. I got the following reply a week later on my talk page: Thank you for your very prompt feed back. Time was needed here to come to grips with Wikipedia's citation requirements before replying. Whilst the submission was repeatedly checked before submitting for accuracy of references it is realised (and this by following up on on Wikipedia's very useful links) that citations are a further level of verification. The way forward is obviously to resubmit with the submission fully in accord with Wikipedias citation requirements, and this may take several to-ing and fro-ing attempts to get it right. The alternative approach is to seek professional assistance from those well experienced in writing Wikipedia submissions. It is apparent such professional help is available as several of the existing Wikipedia sites online of celebrities in the media, entertainment and sporting fields, but also political figures clearly bear the hall-marks of professional preparation assistance. This latter suggested approach of seeking professional support before re-submitting seems the preferred way forward to reduce/eliminate to-ing and fro-ing. If you can suggest persons or organisations from whom one can seek such preparation help that would be of considerable help. However, if you cannot, in order to maintain a professional detachment - and that is appreciated - then such help will be sought independently.

Can some other experienced editor advise this editor (as I am doing) that seeking professional assistance, known as paid editing, is strongly discouraged? Not only will I not make a recommendation as to what professional Wikipedia writer to use, but I will strongly recommend against using any professional editor. Read the conflict of interest policy. I infer that Ropege has an association with the subject of the article, or would not be considering using professional help. User:Ropege - Are you working for Pem Gerner? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Can some other editor please assist me in explaining that this is not how Wikipedia works? Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Robert McClenon and Ropege: I agree with Robert in the strongest possible terms. It has been my experience that paid editors most often do not have sufficient experience at working within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and make newbie mistakes such as using inappropriate sources; even when they do have such experience, paid editors often find it difficult to avoid being overly promotional in the wording of articles they draft, which will also lead to a draft being declined or an article being deleted.

To demonstrate that unpaid editors can write with professional competence, Ropege, I offer these articles I created as examples. Not to be immodest, but I think the level of writing craft in those articles should suffice to show you that seeking the assistance of a paid editor is not only inadvisable but also unnecessary. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 03:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

One other point, Ropege: we are required to assume good faith; but several separate pieces of evidence lead me to suspect that you are here for promotional purposes, which are forbidden on Wikipedia. Your user name could be an abbreviation of Robert Pem Gerner; this draft is the only thing you have worked on in Wikipedia; and it would be unusual for somebody to be so concerned about an article they were working on to be prepared to pay somebody to work on it unless they had some more than altruistic interest in the article. If I'm wrong, I apologise for my suspicions; but if I'm right, please read our policy on conflict of interest and why autobiography is very strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. We are here to build an encyclopaedia, a distillation of what independent reliable sources have said about subjects, not to promote anybody or anything. --ColinFine (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Ropege I must agree with the above comments. After ten years of editing and admin experience, I have encountered paid editors on many occasions. Sometimes they do a good job, and are truly professional, but far more often they actually make more problems than they solve for their clients, and on a number of occasions they have so pushed overly promotional language as to get the topics they worked on permanently barred from inclusion (known in Wikipedia jargon as "salted", as in "sow the land with salt"). As a result there is a pervasive suspicion of paid editors, and articles on which they work often do not get the same level of assistance from experienced volunteers. Note also that any paid editor must now publicly disclose that he or she is writing for pay, and exactly who paid the fee. This disclosure is permanently associated with the article or articles involved. Failing to so disclose violates the site's terms of Service and is grounds for banning the paid editor. Also, you should be aware that even if a paid editor is employed, once any text is submitted to Wikipedia it can and will be ruthlessly edited by anyone who desires to do so. The paid text is unlikely to remain unaltered for long.

Note also that in addition to lacking inline citations, the major problem with Draft: Pem Gerner as it stands is that it reads like a resume, not an encyclopedia article. I have copy edited it slightly to convert the headings into proper wiki-markup sections and add a few wiki-links, and make other format and style changes. Enlisting the interest of an experienced volunteer can help with this issue as well as the issue of citations. DES ^(talk) 13:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, Robert McClenon, Colin Fine and David E Siegel quickly leapt to the defence of Wikipedia 'in-house' editors. I know that it seems hard to believe but the suggestion (repeat) suggestion of external editing was to help the process of presenting the article properly and in accordance with Wikipedia protocols based on reckoning that busy Wikipedia Editors would welcome such a consideration - clearly not so. This helpful suggestion did not get to first base, but was based on more than a passing acquaintance with other publishing occasions in which external editors to the publishing house have been excellent in their work, diligent and highly valued by the publisher. Again, clearly it seems this has no parallel alignment with Wikipedia processes. A final note here, with the suggestion of an external editor was to assist in reducing the to-ing and fro-ing that clearly is often of a very extended nature between the author and the editors as Teahouse exchanges make apparent. Enough said and the engagement of external editing assistance will not be mentioned again.

Less helpful was the jolly forensics on the name Ropege which if it needs any explanation was that it was a last desperate attempt here to find a password, any password, to gain access to Wikipedia and has no underlying connotation. As for the suggestion that the article was lodged with a promotional intent a check of the dates in the article would have revealed that it is strictly speaking of contemporary historical interest and cannot be construed as of a promotional nature. The issue of citations is clearly understood and will be attended to as too a shift needed from the resume format to that of an encyclopedic article.

After this exchange it is time to move forward one would say...124.149.160.133 (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ropege

uploading images without them being your personal work

The only way I have found to upload images is to declare them as your own work. Now in my case these images are scans of family album originals from WW2 era. If the owner of the album (or their ancestor) took the photos and they are happy for the images to be released to the public domain then I think uploading them should be permissible? Otherwise if the photo owner is not sure who took the picture but it is of the same age then I still think uploading should be permissible, until someone is able to prove that they own the copyright (and it is still valid)?Clc136a (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If the person who took the photos is willing for them to be uploaded, understanding that this means that anyone anywhere can reuse them for any purpose, they can be uploaded. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for the proper procedure -- basically the person who owns the copyright (normally the person who took the photo) must indicate a willingness to release it under a free license. But copyright doesn't work as you wish it to. You don't get to publish something until the owner objects, you must secure permission in advance to use a copyrighted work, and Wikipedia is quite strict about that requirement. If the original photographer is dead and the person who owns the album is the heir of the original photographer, that person owns (or perhaps co-owns) the copyright and could grant a license using the procedure above. But if no one knows who took the picture, Wikipedia won't accept it. DES ^(talk) 22:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC) @Clc136a: DES ^(talk) 22:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I beg your pardon but I don't think you have answered my question - as far as I can see when trying to upload images you cannot unless you declare them as your own work, which is not the caseClc136a (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Clc136a. I think the problem might be that you were using the Upload Wizard, which offers a more limited range of licensing choices. Try the regular Commons upload form. That way, you'll be able to specify the "Original source" (here you could put something like "family photo") and "Author" (the person who took the photo — I recommend specifying both the photographer's relationship to you and their name, e.g. "my grandmother Jane Smith", but you can go with just one or the other if you have privacy concerns, and if you're not reasonably sure who exactly was holding the camera when the photo was taken, you could just put "a relative of mine, now deceased"), and select one of the "Not self-made, but has been released under:" licensing options. Be sure you also fill in the "Permission" field. Using the OTRS email process is a good idea and will help ensure that the photos are not nominated for deletion. As always, feel free to return to the Teahouse should you need any further assistance. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Clc136a, I didn't fully address the technical procedure, because it depends a little on exactly who now owns the copyright and how they are going to indicate that the image is freely licensed. I will assume that you have determined who the owner is, and secured written permission, preferably in an email or written document that you could scan and email to the Wikimedia Foundation, before you start this process. So here goes:

1. Scan or download the desired image.
2. Optionally crop and scale down so that it is what you want to upload
3. Go to Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard.
4. click on the large text "Click here to start the Upload Wizard"
5. Choose your file: Click the browse button and select the file on your computer that you intend to upload
6. Describe your file
   1. Enter a name for the file by which it will be known on Wikipedia
   2. Enter a description of the file, preferably with a link to the article or page where you intend to use it.
7. Provide source and copyright information -- select "This is a free work"
8. Copyright status -- select "This file was given to me by its owner."
9. Fill out all the fields possible in the box that opens. In particular, specify who is the copyright owner, where you got the image, and how you received permission. Indicate what license the copyright owner has agreed to (I recommend cc-by-sa 3.0 if you are asked to help the owner choose) Under "evidence" choose either "The license hasn't yet been forwarded, but I will do so shortly or ask the owner to send it himself." or "The license agreement has been forwarded to Wikimedia's copyright service at 'permissions-en@wikimedia.org'." I suggest the first, so that you can include the exact file name in the email you will send to <permissions-en@wikimedia.org>. You must include the statement of the copyright owner releasing the image. See WP:DCM, and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for the procedure, and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a model statement of permission.
10. Click the "Upload" button.

While free works are preferably placed on commons, I gave you directions for local uploading because the corresponding commons form requires an exact wiki-text copyright tag, instead of offering a pull-down. Once uploaded locally, an image under a free license can easily be copied to Commons.

If you have problems with any of that, please come back here and let us know and we will try toi help further. DES ^(talk) 23:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

only original images?

I would like to include an image from a journal article, but in going through the tutorial, it seems like you can only add original images or images already on wikipedia. Can someone please confirm or disconfirm being able to upload images from outside sources with appropriate citation?

Thanks, Amanda Amanda.norona (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Amanda.norona, you can add pictures to articles that have already been uploaded to Commons, upload your own pictures to add, or search for photos taken by others that are eligible for upload. If the image you want to upload is under copyright, you probably can't upload it. Wikipedia is extremely strict about non-free files and deletes them. However, if the image is in the public domain or licensed CC BY SA, you can upload it without any problems. Hope this helps. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 01:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Proof of not sockpuppeting

Alright. So I wrote a long post, and posted it with the "Ask a Question" function. Didn't work, and lost everything. So essentially I go to school on weekdays (obviously), and my school provides internet. People usually vandalise wikipedia due to the fact that it's not their IP address. The talk page is here. (The IP's currently blocked) Also, sometimes people vandalise my user page in Chinese (although I'm in Canada). Bots can't fix it. Maybe bring a bot here from the Chinese wikipedia? Frank (User Page) (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I JUST FOUND OUT I FORGOT TO ASK THE QUESTION. So how can I prove to admins that I'm not sockpuppeting? Frank (User Page) (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Imfrankliu, welcome back to the Teahouse! Sock puppetry occurs when one person creates multiple accounts for prohibited purposes, such as creating a false illusion of support at a discussion. It is not considered sock puppetry if you share an IP address with another person who edits Wikipedia. If you are blocked in connection with edits by someone else sharing your IP address, you can typically appeal your block successfully if you explain what's going on and can verify that the IP address is shared. With regards to vandalism, I took a look at the edit history of your user page, and the last instance of vandalism I found was last month. If your user page persistently suffers from vandalism, an administrator can semi-protect it so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. However, I don't see evidence that this is warranted. My advice would be to revert vandalistic edits on sight when and if they occur. If you have further questions, feel free to leave a follow-up here. Best, Mz7 (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!  Resolved by Mz7. Frank (User Page) (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

How can I protect my user pages?

Hi Teahouse, How can I protect articles/user pages from being edited? I want to protect my user page.MochaMilk (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi MochaMilk, I've never requested a protection but as I understand it an admin has to fulfill the request and put the protection on the page. By the way, why do you want to protect your page--is it being vandalized? Most admins will probably fulfill your request if it is or has been recently, but if you only want to keep others from editing it and have never had it vandalized, they probably won't. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 01:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi MochaMilk, you need to ask at WP:Requests for page protection - although your user page has never been vandalized, and this will only be semi-protection - or otherwise you will not be able to edit your user page yourself. Furthermore, admins will only protect your user-page, not your talk page - and please stop adding blank "Help-me" templates to your talk page - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

What formatting tags to use

Where can I find the wikitext markup formatting tags to use in order to create an article? I see some in various places, the tags to create italics, bold, etc., but I can't find one complete list of tags to use when writing my article. I've already done the initial editing exercises that you get when you create an account, but not formatting for a new article. Just fyi, I've used markup language in other situations, so I'm familiar with the concept. I just can't find a cheatsheet with all the ones I need. And I did see the Cheatsheet but it didn't seem to have all the necessary tags. Thank you.Lakelandcrib (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Lakelandcrib, the quick cheatsheet can be found at Help:Cheatsheet and the full list is Help:Wiki markup. I've added a welcome message to your talk page to give you some more useful links to start with. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

: Hi Lakelandcrib, I have a user subpage that may help you: User:White Arabian Filly/Help for New Users, in addition to the links from KylieTastic. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 17:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)