Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 518

Archive 515

Archive 516

Archive 517

Archive 518

Archive 519

Archive 520

→

Archive 525

looking for neutrality

Hi my article was rejected as the reviewer stated that i looked more like advertising than an article ad lacked neutrality. I had seen articles similar to mine that are public and wonder what is amiss. I have used secondary sources from business and professional journals. Page is Draft: Alzheon. Appreciate any advice DHeidtman (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi DHeidtman
IMHO Draft: Alzheon is overtly promotional - "Alzheon’s mission is ..." " "The company applies a precision medicine approach .." are all "ad-speak", and that is just the first paragraph.
As for "other articles similar to mine", that is an invalid argument in Wikipedia - we are not trying to copy the worst - please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists - and it is not "your" article, it is Wikipedia's article.
Finally, I note that all your edits are to Draft: Alzheon, or asking about that article, either here or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk I, therefore, suspect you may have a conflict of interest in writing about Alzheon, if you are connected to the company in any way at all, please read and follow our guidelines on conflict of interest - here - Arjayay (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)]]

Arjaya thanks for your helpful feedback! I appreciate the need to not compare to others. I will be attempting to write with more neutrality. DHeidtmanDHeidtman (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note also, DHeidtman, that the drafts process is relatively new, and lots of articles haven't been through the review process that you're currently going through. That means that we have lots of poor-quality articles, but once yours has been accepted then hopefully it won't be subject to deletion, as poorer articles might be at any time. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, thanks for your feedback, there is much to learn!DHeidtman (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

User Names and Article Names - Minimizing Confusion

I have several times recently seen cases where a new editor selected an account name that was the name of the person about whom they were writing an article. In each case, of course, other editors assumed that the draft was an autobiography, and then considerable confusion resulted. This seems to be a more common error than I had previously thought. The question is: Should the screen that asks a user to register an account be updated to clarify the difference between a user name and an article name? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I ran into this problem often. Just a few minutes ago, I responded to an OTRS inquiry from someone who is confused because they were told the username was fine but it was also blocked. I've pushed for an overhaul to the username process but it didn't get much traction, perhaps because I was pushing for too much. I'm in support of approaches such as you suggest although I think more needs to be done. I trust you realize this is not the venue for such a discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I have seen this fairly often, Robert McClenon, but I have come to think that people who make these mistakes probably don't read the relevant notices. Take Wikipedia talk:Teahouse as an example. Editors quite often post their questions there, despite the clear notice that it isn't the Teahouse questions page. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

In other words, I think that Cordless Larry is saying that there is only so much that can be done to prevent mistakes. Murphy's law says that if anything can possibly go wrong, it will. There should be a corollary that some things that cannot possibly go wrong will go wrong anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

From Draft to Review to Published Article

I created/edited Wikipedia pages shortly after Wikipedia was launched, but haven't been back since. Tools like VisualEditor and Drafts are new to me. So - rookie question - once I've created & saved a draft, does it automatically go into a queue for review, or do I need to manually move it to a review/publish section before becoming an article? Thanks!Newstorey (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Newstorey. Review of drafts by experienced editors is an optional process for the benefit of newer editors. If you are confident that your draft complies with policies and guidelines, you can move it to main space yourself. If you want a review, place this code at the top of your draft:

{{subst:submit}}

It will then go into the queue waiting for a review. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

About the article Equality before the law

I was re-reading the introduction and it struck me how one sentence sounded like an opinion.

Such as:

But the Achilles Heel of liberalism is naivete. In practice the law is slow and prohibitively expensive. There is little or no equality when an individual confronts the State or a large company such as an Insurance company.

There is also:

There is an old saying that 'All are equal before the law.'

The belief in equality before the law is called legal egalitarianism.

Who said this or where does this claim come from?

How could this be improved or at least what markup could they can be fixed by other Wikipedians? -JamesPoulson (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahuse, JamesPoulson. That first piece of text you quote was added to the article recently, and I have reverted it. Templates for tagging problematic language are available via Wikipedia:Template messages. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Paywall / Registration Walls

What is the view on articles that have pay walls or require barriers to entry for use in references? An interesting set of scenarios is happening whereby these restrictions sometimes happen and sometimes do not. E.g. Harvard Business Review lets you view X articles per user before it takes you to a sign up page. Others do this based on country so editor/author might see it freely but others do not. Writeasong (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Writeasong. Scholarly journals are amongst the most reliable sources we can cite, and are often behind paywalls, so a paywall shouldn't be a reason not to use a source. See WP:SOURCEACCESS on this. Obviously, if there are two equally reliable sources available and one is behind a paywall whereas the other is free to access, there is a case for citing the freely available one, or both. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Writesong. As Cordless Larry points out, it's OK to cite such sources as references since (1) they are published and (2) they can be accessed by someone. Lots of old newspaper articles, etc. are archived and some of these may require registration or subscription in order to be viewed. Some Wikipedians can gain access to these per WP:HIGHBEAM while others simply sign up on their own. One helpful thing can be to use |subscription= or |registration= for such sources as explained in Template:Cite journal#Subscription or registration required. This lets the reader know that they may not be able to view the source or view only an except of the source. Please be advised that such sites are only considered acceptable as citations; they are not typically allowed as external links per No. 6 of WP:ELNO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Citing references

In my article, I used footnotes to cite references. However, they did not appear on the Wiki page. I went with it anyway. How do I edit the article with the appropriate annotations? thanksTerry G. Shotland (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to Draft:Stephen Williams there are no footnotes nor any other form of references. The feedback on the draft (and on your user talk page) tells you how to include references. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Terry G. Shotland. It looks like you have added some references to the article. Now, I suggest you add a "Reference" section to the end of the draft. You can find out how to do this by reading WP:REFB#Before you start. You might also want to take a look at WP:CITESTYLE.

I also suggestion you format the section headings in your draft properly as explained in MOS:HEAD and MOS:SECTIONCAPS. This will make it much easier for others to read your article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion notice

I found that there was a deletion conversation on the one article I have written. I believe I have addressed the issue (I hope...) with references and citations. My question is, am I supposed to notify Wikipedia in some way regarding the additions? Do I post on the article's entry for deletions? Or is it better to wait and see what happens?

Paul D. MusilierPdmus (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pdmus. The debate is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Davison (composer). The only independent sources I see are to a newspaper called the Idyllwild Town Crier, serving a community of less than 4,000 people. That does not seem like a source adequate to establish the notability of a composer. I would look for sources with a reputation for reviewing original music in Southern California, such as the Los Angeles Times. You can comment further at the deletion debate, but I suggest that you add better sources than those now present in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Pdmus, I see you have previously written a long comment about sources in the deletion discussion, mentioning Peter Davison's CDs, film scores, etc. and places that his music can be bought online. This is not what is required. What is needed to demonstrate notability is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. The fact that Davison has released some CDs doesn't make him notable. If people have written about those CDs in, for example, major newspapers, then that might make him notable and those are the types of sources you need to cite. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of my article

Hello, thank you for your help in advance. My article "Classter School Management System" was proposed for deletion. Even though I have added 2 refences from 2 of the most renown newspapers in Greece. What could I do to maintain the article in Wikipedia?

Kind Regards, Classter by Vertitech SA (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Classter by Vertitech SA: There's probably nothing you can do to maintain the article in Wikipedia. The subject is an unremarkable software package. The two sources you have cited appear to be two presentations of the same press release. Maproom (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Classter by Vertitech SA: Please read the Conflict of Interest policy pages as well. Having a username that is so clearly related to the article you have started is one sign of a possible conflict of interest.

Articles that are created as promotion pieces will generally be nominated for deletion and, if you had submitted it as a draft for review, you would most likely have been asked to substantially rewrite the article so it has inline citations, backed up by reliable sources. Newspaper articles can generally be used, but the content of the newspaper article must support the statement of fact that appears in the Wikipedia article (without quoting verbatim, as that would violate copyright).

It can be a difficult standard to meet.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

New Editor Wants Advice

I received the following general request for advice at my talk page from User:Johnegood:

Hi Robert, I am somewhat baffled by the question of how to write and navigate thru Wiki. I understand the feedback that I was given that the article for Burton Edelson was inadequately documented leaving too many questions open. At this point, I despair of ever learning the semantics and protocols of wikipedia. Is is it possible to hire an expert to do the research and the submission? Would that be frowned upon? What started as a fun project is, now that I'm about 12 hours into, another nasty chore full of confusion and frustration.. I'm sure a good researcher who knows wikipedia could do it in 2-3 hours. Is such a person findable?
This communication with you is an example of the problems that I face. Is editing source code the right way to respond to your kind invitation to answer a question? It feels wrong. Plus there's a weird delay so I'm typing and correcting missed letters at a snail's pace. Morse code would feel better than this. And now I realize that I have no idea how to ever get an answer...sigh. john edelson (reachable as [redacted] )

The background is that I declined Draft: Burton Edelson as inadequately sourced. I can see that the author finds Wikipedia to be technically difficult. I don’t entirely understand the question about editing source code. I can comment that hiring an expert to do a submission would be paid editing, and that paid editing is indeed strongly discouraged. However, if a novice editor who has no conflict of interest wants to request unpaid help, some experienced editors will be glad to help develop articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC

When the New York Times publishes a twelve paragraph obituary lauding a person's scientific and engineering accomplishments, as they did when Burton Edelson died in 2002, then we can be sure that the person is notable. Every assistance should be extended to Johnegood to develop this article until it is ready for the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

When Visual Editor is turned on the normal "edit" tab on talk pages turns into "Edit source". I can see how it's confusing to new editors – surely a major website doesn't require you to edit source markup to send a simple message? – but, alas, we do... Joe Roe (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

List Articles

An editor has created a list article with over 60 items. The list article has no independent notability WP:N and no attempt has been made to formally acknowledge the creative issues in the creation of the list WP:CITE. The editor has used the list article to create over 50 small articles to effectively by-pass the rules of Original Research WP:OR and independent notabilityWP:N and independent verifiability WP:V. The editor has engaged in a local consensus in redirecting link articles or duplicates/ contradicts information in other link articles or produce alternative explanations. I have extensively used the talk-pages to remedy the situation but the situation of mini-articles in the list remains. I have considered the BRD procedure and to deal with problems with over 70 list items may take 6 months to a year and the overall problem of the issue independent notability WP:N would remain. Is this an overall misuse of a list article ? I would like to avoid the issue of tendentious editing. Thanks agljones(talk)08:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Does this refer to List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course, to edit wars such as at Windy Corner, Isle of Man, and to the RFC at Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course? --David Biddulph (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The list article is this List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course. I am trying to avoid problems by asking for advice. Wikipedia is a hobby and I try to look for the best way forward. Thanks. agljones(talk)Agljones (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I doubt whether discussion here is going to help. This page is intended for new users to seek advice. It appears that in this case you are an experienced editor, and that there are already ongoing discussions on the relevant pages. I see also that this matter has been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive924#Editors Rocknrollmancer and doncram and that you have been given advice there. Discussing it here might be regarded as forum shopping. David Biddulph (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight and advice . I will consider the matter carefully. agljones(talk)AgljonesAgljones (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

EDITING

Hello, Why you allow users to editing while it's not allowed to save changes? I tried to edit while I have evidence source but nothing. Mohamed Helmi (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to these edits, you were changing text to capital letters without explaining why. Please read Wikipedia's guidance on the use of capital letters. You also changed information, in contravention of the reference given. Another editor therefore reverted your changes. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

This question has already been asked and answered below, Mohamed Helmi. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

re-naming an article?

The article AEDP: Accelerated Experiential Dynamic Psychotherapy, is directed only by typing in Accelerated Experien.... in the search box. I would like to name the article in such a way that it can be searched by typing in simply, AEDP. Thank you. Carrieruggieri (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You could create a redirect, but it's probably not worth doing that until the current speedy deletion nomination has been considered. A Wikipedia search for AEDP already shows Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy as first response. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Carrieruggieri, I've created the redirect so the article will now show up if someone goes to AEDP directly. Joe Roe (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be negative, but I'm really surprised that this article was accepted in its review. It needs lots of work to come up to standard, in my view. Sadly, it is too technical for me to be able to help with the content. It reads like an essay in places, not an encyclopedia article (e.g. the caveat and the in-text "note"). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the redirect Joe Roe. Cordless Larry, I will remove the caveat, and the "note." I agree that there are places that read more like essay's. That happens when I am trying to be less technical. If you could point out what parts meet encyclopedic language (hopefully there are some places), that would be helpful. Thank-you. Carrieruggieri Carrieruggieri (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't understand large parts of the article. Starting with the introduction, we have "Contemporary psychotherapy research recognizes AEDP as prioritizing psychotherapy interventions known to promote positive change in psychotherapy...and has been either studied directly or referenced in research delineating change factors in psychotherapy". What has been studied directly? I presume AEDP, but the way the sentence is worded, it sounds like contemporary psychotherapy research. Then, "See Research heading below, and specifically references", which isn't a complete sentence and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. "Overall, AEDP is recognized as an effective treatment for complex post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression". Recognised by whom? Does every expert agree on this? That's just a few issues from the (now thankfully shorter than it was) introduction. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Very helpful critiques Cordless Larry, thank-you. I will clarify. I appreciate your careful reading and the time involved in improving this article which is, I agree, too parsimonious (which I thought was encyclopedic). Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

My sense is that too much of the article content is stated as fact, rather than as the opinion of the therapists associated with this approach. For example, is "Transformance cannot effect psychotherapeutic change without the requisite and crucial act of meta-therapeutic processing, or metaprocessing for short" an uncontested fact, or the view of the therapists? WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV might be relevant here. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

One option that occurs to me is to move the article back to draft space. That way, it could be improved without being subject to deletion attempts. Pinging Joe Roe and Robert McClenon, who has lots of experience with the drafts process, for their opinions. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Now that you're talking about how to improve the specific article, not working on a general question suitable for The Teahouse, can I suggest that you move this discussion to the article's Talk page?  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If we go back to basics, the purpose of AfC is not to turn out perfect, GA-ready articles, it's to get drafts to a point where they're (quoting WP:AFCR) "likely to survive an AfD nomination". After Carrieruggieri had diligently responded to reviewers' comments over a period of months, I felt that the draft fulfilled the core policies of WP:N, WP:V (by a mile), and WP:NPOV (some editors obviously disagree – but I think it's a mistake to assume that because an article is written in the style of a research paper it is POV-pushing), and was therefore ready for mainspace. The only serious problem with the article is overly technical and unencyclopaedic in tone. That leaves room for improvement but not grounds for deletion—I know there are core articles in my area of expertise that have been completely impenetrable to the general reader for years, for example―and so I'm confident it would pass an AfD. Unfortunately these days there are too many trigger-happy editors who would rather stick a CSD template on an article than a cleanup tag, but I don't think the article should be moved back to draft at this point. Joe Roe (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Joe Roe, I very much appreciate your time and effort to improve this article. I know you are all volunteers, so I am especially grateful for your help. Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The article contains the sentence, "The entire transformational sequenced process is mapped out in the attached diagram". This must have been copied from some document that actually had an attachment. I have failed to find such a document on the internet. But I still suspect that copyright violation is involved. Maproom (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe that is a reference to File:Aedp chart.jpg, which is included ("attached") in the article. Joe Roe (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Using information from other Wikipedia articals in a new artical

I am working on an article for the March 86G racing car, a car used and re-branded as a BMW GTP while also having a career as a Nissan and Buick-branded vehicle. The BMW GTP has it's own Wikipedia article and I was wondering if I was allowed to copy an amount of the text from and link to the aforementioned BMW GTP Wikipedia article into my own one since it would be relevant and I would otherwise simply be re-typing the same information again in my own words anyway. I know there's a lot talk about not plagiarising and that would be the last thing I'd want to do, I figured it would therefore be best to ask.Fred E Coyote (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fred E Coyote: Welcome Fred. First, thanks for asking. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for the proper way to copy material within Wikipedia.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fred E Coyote. I see that you have posted a note at Talk:BMW GTP about coping material from that article, but I think that you also need to mention this in an edit summary so that it is clear in the history of the new March 86G article. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I have added a note at the bottom of the March 86G page which states the information was copied from the BMW GTP page, in accordance with the information stated in the "copying from Wikipedia" link provided by S Philbrick. I'll edit it again and state that in the Article History.Fred E Coyote (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something (which is quite possible!), Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia suggests that that note should go in an edit summary rather than at the bottom of the article, Fred E Coyote. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. I'll take your word for it. That would make sense, since it cleans up the flow of the article a fair bit... I'll be sure to make that modificationFred E Coyote (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference error

I just edited Eugeniusz Geno Malkowski article to fill in the death parameters. When finding the sourcing, all four sourcing I've found (in Polish) have said he was 74 at the time of his death (5 September 1942 – 20 August 2016), even though he wouldn't have turned 74 until the 5 of September (16 days from August 20, 2016). Is there any steps needed to be taken when sources have an error in them? Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 00:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If you're confident about both the date of birth and date of death (and they're sourced) then it should be self-evident that the age at death given in the sources is wrong. No need to do anything else. Joe Roe (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright Joe Roe, thank you! Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 01:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

How do I transfer pictures to Commons?

Hello I left a similar message a couple days ago titled "Transfering files to Wikipedia Commons and OAuth uploader". I realized that it is probably badly worded.

In short I am trying to transfer a file to Wikipedia commons, specifically File:Garid magnai.jpg which was tagged by another editor to be transferred. I however have no idea how to do it. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated thanks! Inter&anthro (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Inter&anthro. Please take a look at Help:Transwiki, which should give you the information you need. There is also a link to that help page on the image page, in the section where it says that the image is a candidate for transfer to Wikimedia Commons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

How to add geographic location as markup?

I have a word e.g. "Test" that I want to make clickable with geographic reference using longitude and latitude.

What is the Wikipedia markup for adding geographical location ?

MortenZdk (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MortenZdk. Please take a look at WikiProject Geographical coordinates, which should give you the technical information you need. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MortenZdk (talk • contribs) 09:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

My submission didn't granted !

My submission titled NCTF NARSINGDI countiously refused by some ***** users! I am stuffed . Why this hell is happening???Taronga013 (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Taronga013. I understand it can be frustrating to have your draft declined, but please remember that the reviewers are volunteers who are devoting their time to make sure your article is ready to be published. Were your draft to be published now, it would almost certainly be deleted and you would not benefit from the valuable advice the reviewers are giving you. So please do not insult them.

You have been asked twice to provide additional references to prove that this organisation is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (not all organisations are!). I am sorry if the reviewers' comments were not clear on what was expected from you, but the golden rule is that you must show that the subject of your draft has had substantial coverage in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the organisation itself. For example, articles in major newspaper articles about it. Links to YouTube (which is not reliable) or the organisation's website (not independent) do not show that people outside the organisation are talking about.

Please try and find more reliable, independent sources to add to your draft before you submit it for review again. And consider whether a local branch of a charity is actually notable. It may be more appropriate to simply add (a small amount of) information from your draft to our existing article on the National Children's Task Force. Joe Roe (talk) 10:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

And please note that resubmitting the draft (as you have recently done) without having addressed the problems raised in the previous view is a waste of your time and of reviewers' time. To do so repeatedly would be liable to be regarded as tendentious editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Taronga013. In addition to what Joe and David posted above, you should not really be copying and pasting content found in other Wikipedia articles into your draft because it could be considered a copyright violation if not done properly per WP:CWW. It's best to try and write articles in your own words based upon what you've read in the reliable sources you are citing and avoid any possibility of plagarism. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all for your valuable suggestions on my que. I am shamed for using lame speech on my question. I do respect all of them who tried continuously to make WP environment suitable for all. Thanks for considering me.

& a question more, will the reference enough of a leading daily newspapers & TV channels news covering link on NCTF ??? 09:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taronga013 (talk • contribs)

For Draft:NCTF Narsingdi to be accepted requires that "NCTF Narsingdi" has received significant coverage (more than a trivial mention) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It is no good that they mention NCTF, as we already have an article on National Children's Task Force. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Threats

Hi, I think someone threatened me. [1] The person said: "KOFTË SÊË JÊË SHQIPTARË UN KAMÊTË XHETË" which in Albanian means: "If you are an Albanian I will find you!" It seems to be a threat or something similar. The same thing happened to Zoupan. [2] Where should I report this editor? Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Threats and other disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI. Disruptive editing involving certain battleground areas, including the Balkans, may be reported at Arbitration Enforcement, a quicker way to dealing with disruption, but only if proper notice has first been given. See ArbCom discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Robert McClenon! Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Jarrod Moses article

Robert McClenon gave me advice saying "The references in my article, titled Jarrod Moses,are inconsistently formatted ". 

I also did not realize I submitted two copies, I was trying to edit one and now I am confused how to submit the updated version. I would love to get my article approved but how can I chance my references to the proper format, also where do I go to submit my article? Thank you Nisdaner (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You have been working in 3 different places. Your first draft was at Draft:Jarrod Moses, and the second at User:Nisdaner/sandbox. You then added a further draft in your user talk page at User talk:Nisdaner, which is not the right place for a draft article so you ought to delete that section of your user talk page. As you were the only substantial contributor to Draft:Jarrod Moses you can request its deletion by adding {{Db-g7}} to the top of the draft. You can resubmit your sandbox draft using the resubmit button, but you must not do that without addressing the points raised by previous reviewers. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of correcting the spelling of my name. As User:David Biddulph says, the two copies are Draft:Jarrod Moses and User:Nisdaner/sandbox, in addition to the copy on the user talk page. Since the two copies appear almost identical, it doesn't really matter which one is improved and which one is deleted. Please read Referencing for beginners as to how to clean up the references. If you continue to have problems with them, you can ask us for help with the references. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I do have a question. Do you have a connection with either Jarrod Moses or his company? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Tool for editing timelines?

I have a suspicion that two "different" editors are actually the same person. I've been using a spreadsheet to create a timeline that shows that they never edit at the same time. But it's a pain in the ass. Is there perhaps a tool that takes the contributions of two editors and creates a timeline of activity, to show (ideally) via a graph whether there is ever any overlap of editing time? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Nomoskedasticity: The closest thing I know is Editor Interaction Analyser, as this. — Sam Sailor 20:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

(ec)You could always use the "editor interaction tool" which shows sequences of edits. But better yet - list actual evidence that they are the same person at SPI. "Checkusers" have better tools than mere mortals possess on this. Collect (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC) + And you will find that making accusations without some sort of behavioural evidence as a bare minimum is not a great way to "fish" Btw, "typo" is generally used to mean misspelt words, of which there were none to correct above. I did use a dash now to elide what was correct by unusual wording here. Collect (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Collect, can you fix your typos, please? Also, CUs will not check a user without solid evidence, as well as a very good reason to do so. I know this from past SPIs I've filed. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

X's edit counter will give you a summary of the times that an editor tends to edit at, so that might help provide an overview for both accounts' editing behaviour. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responses so far. The interaction analyser is focused more on overlap for specific articles, and the edit counter tool does only one editor at a time. What I'm hoping for is something that does two editors in the same analysis but doesn't break things down by article. The point is to demonstrate that two different accounts never edit at the same time. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If all you have are "fishing expedition" suspicions, you really should simply shut up here. I was once accused of being an editor who was never within 500 miles of me, and who was giving public lectures when I was online. Another was done while I was blocked, and, IMHO, designed specifically for the purpose of harassment at best. Without any real evidence on your part, I suggest you simply forget this whole "I am Sam Spade" type undercover operation. The times one is online is, by the way, a horrid system for asserting socking. Collect (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that Nomoskedasticity is going about this the right way, Collect, by asking for help with collecting evidence without making accusations against named editors. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

He was told the exact proper procedure, and continued on. One might well be able to identify his prey here at this point, but the procedures have been known and commented on many times in the past, and he is well aware of the standard advice. [3] shows his familiarity of the process for at least six years now. And he has participated in a score of SPI filings. Where a person has such specific knowledge, it strikes me as odd that he comes here with enough material for others to identify those whom he is suspicious about. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Darling Collect -- do you really imagine that telling me to "shut up" is likely to work? If the thread I started is bringing back bad memories, then perhaps consider not tea but gin. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Um -- I made no personal asides about you here, and would appreciate your redaction of your asides about me. As for your comment about "gin" kindly note that I am not an alcoholic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the backstory here, so I won't comment further. Just to note that this page is intended to help new editors, Nomoskedasticity, whereas you seem to be quite experienced. Wikipedia:Help desk might be a more appropriate venue in future. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Not-independent sources

Under what condtions is a not-independent source (not a third party-source) allowed? S Khemadhammo (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Non independent sources are allowed in principle, but they're not useful in certain circumstances. For instance, they do not help to establish the notability of a person. However, self published sources are routinely allowed for things like mundane personal details, for example, where someone went to school, where the were born, or where they live. TimothyJosephWood 14:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to ping @S Khemadhammo:. TimothyJosephWood 14:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Timothyjosephwood. I've got another question above.S Khemadhammo (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Guidance needed on how to improve article

I have twice submitted an article [4] for publication and had it rejected.

In response to the first rejection I added a significant number of correctly cited references to demonstrate the notability of the article's subject.

The second rejection was because the article "doesn't really seem encyclopedic"; it was suggested that I "could add more content to this article". In July I requested guidance [5] from the editor who had rejected the article on how best to proceed with the article, but have never received a response.

Can someone explain to me what more I need to do in order to get this article published?

Many thanks! simontcope 13:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slim cop (talk • contribs) 13:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Slim cop. I agree that it isn't the most helpful explanation for a rejection, and it doesn't seem to be exactly in line with policy as I understand it. Information about performances is most relevant since the person is notable as a performer. Personally, I think the draft looks fine. The sources seem mainstream, and doing some web searches, it looks like the person has received significant coverage above and beyond that already included in the article.

If you would like to resubmit for review, I'm certainly willing to approve as fairly easily passing WP:GNG. Of course, you should always continue to try to improve on articles you create, but in it's current form, it seems unlikely that the article would fail a deletion discussion. TimothyJosephWood 14:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Timothy Joseph Wood that's extremely helpful - I will resubmit my article in the next 24 hours and look forward to its being approved. Many thanks! simontcope (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

When can I remove tagged content

Timothyjosephwood, when can I remove tagged content? In the article Wat Phra Dhammakaya#True Self, one sentence at the end has been tagged as being irrelevant for a while now, but no-one has engaged in discussing this, nor did anyone try to make it more relevant. I am not certain what the contributor of this sentence intended to convey. I'd like to clean it up now.S Khemadhammo (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Ideally, a tag like this would serve as a reminder for the person who added it, to identify a place where they need to come back and fix an issue. If, for some reason, it is not an issue the person can fix themselves, they would ideally address their concerns on the talk page.

Unfortunately, perhaps because of material that has been redacted for copyright violation, it's not clear who originally added the tag. Usually I would recommend reaching out to them to see what their concerns were, but I'm not sure it's easily done in this situation.

You always have the option to be bold and remove the tag if there is no obvious reason for it. Then if the user who added takes exception, you can use that as an opportunity to discuss. TimothyJosephWood 14:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Timothyjosephwood, but what I meant to ask is when and how to remove the sentence. I have tagged the sentence myself because I couldn't fathom what the sentence is trying to convey int this context. I can't figure out who wrote the sentence, so I don't know who to ask to expand on it.S Khemadhammo (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

S Khemadhammo, to remove content simply click on the "edit" link at the top of the section and remove the content that is questionable. Provide a summary of your edit and rationale for the changes in the edit summary and save. If someone disagrees with the change and reverts your edit, you should discuss the changes with them on the talk page. TimothyJosephWood 16:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The answer to the "who wrote the sentence" appears to be User:Joshua Jonathan in this edit on 27 June 2016 - he was merging two articles - which can lead to some "strays, but you may be able to work out what is meant from the previous versions. - Arjayay (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Arjayay, that appears to be the edit where the content in question was added, but not the cleanup tag. TimothyJosephWood 17:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is the question that was being asked "one sentence at the end has been tagged .... I am not certain what the contributor of this sentence intended to convey." - Arjayay (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh. Yes. Sorry, I got turned around. So S Khemadhammo, it looks like the user who originally added the content is still active, so it may be a good idea to try to start a conversation with them about the content. TimothyJosephWood 18:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, guys! I'll ask Joshua then. S Khemadhammo (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

trouble inserting a name to bulleted alphabetical list

Having trouble inserting a name to bulleted alphabetical list - Please see below. I have tried it without the category/sort as well. The name does not go into the list, it goes above

*Bruce Beinfield
[[Category:Name|Sort]]
[[Category:Fellows of the American Institute of Architects]]

InsightOut1 (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that you have been trying to add a name to Category:Fellows of the American Institute of Architects by editing the category itself. That's not how Wikipedia categories work. To add an article to that category, you should go the article itself, and add "[[Category:Fellows of the American Institute of Architects]]" at the bottom. But I can find no Wikipedia article on "Bruce Beinfield" – and you will see near the top of the category, the heading 'Pages in category "Fellows of the American Institute of Architects"'. It is a category of Wikipedia articles, not of architects. So, unless someone creates an article on Bruce Beinfield, the name cannot and should not be added to the category. Maproom (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

InsightOut1, I explained this to you in response to your previous question. Did you see my answer there? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

But to reiterate Maproom's point, InsightOut1, it is only technically possible to add existing articles to categories, and not names with no articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

thanks Cordless Larry. I understand. I am creating an article on Bruce Beinfield and THEN I will link the category

InsightOut1 (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I have a major problem with one of the editors

I realize that there is a COI if I edit my husband, Robert Perless' entry. I found that 2 photographs had incorrectly been deleted, and commented on it. (Sorry.) Meanwhile softlavender has made a gigantic fuss over the fact that there is no "proof" for the Museum Collections in his bio, but other sculptors do not have references on their museum collections, either. She does not understand the art world and makes sweeping incorrect asumptions about what she sees when she looks at a site. She has been extremely vituperative and dismissive of both Robert and his work and myself and it has got to stop.

She keeps insisting that his work has been warehoused if she cannot see it on a museum's site. That is just not how museum sites work. They show their current exhibits and a few pieces from other collections. The Whitney used to show a thumbnail of everything before they moved, but it was just too cumbersome. Now they just show current shows.

Robert has done major Public work for over 40 years. He has had corporate clients like Mobil Oil and Xerox and is currently short-listed for a major sculpture for the City of Honolulu.

Can somebody please stop her misinformed rant and take the [citation needed]off?

Thank you very much for your help. Eperless (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Eperless. I want to hopefully refocus the issues a bit—away from your perception of callous language in the discussions related to the issues; away from whether or not the editor misunderstands how museums list their holdings; away from whether the fact sources can't be found in any way indicates the museum does or does not have your husband's pieces in its holdings—to relevant policies.

Bedrock policy: 1) All material must be verifiable (capable of being verified by citation to published reliable sources); 2) upon a challenge to any item of information that is unsourced, it can be removed by any editor and the burden is on the person wishing to return the item to verify it with an inline citation to a reliable published source corroborating the information. The item cannot be returned until that occurs. That is the burden of anyone who wishes to add back unsourced, challenged and removed items from Robert Perless. Please note that finding other articles that fail our policies, as you have and pointed to has no logical sway. At any given time there are many thousands of articles that have not yet been vetted to remove unverifiable content or have other problems that would need to be addressed, so their existence with those problems in them is irrelevant. See by way of analogy WP:OTHERSTUFF.

So, put aside the other issues you've been discussing. They might have been handled differently, but they are distractions from what I see as the real issues, which is what I've summarized above. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Eperless. I understand that the COI policy can seem like an unnecessary hurdle when you just want to correct simple errors of fact. However, it is essential to upholding the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole. Our readers come here expecting neutral and objective information, and it should be obvious that that trust is rather undermined if they find that a biography has been written by the subject's wife (even if only partially). I strongly encourage you to restrict your activity to the article's talk page from now on, and leave the actual editing of the article to uninvolved, experienced Wikipedia editors.

I'm sorry to hear that you are having problems with your fellow editors. Unfortunately the Teahouse is not the best place to get help with this sort of thing – we are not here to provide "reinforcements" in editorial disputes. Wikipedia has various dispute resolution forums of varying formality, but in my experience most problems can be solved through simple discussion provided it is conducted with all parties assuming good faith.

I've read through the conversation on your talk page, and I have to say I don't think either DGG or Softlavender have said anything amiss. You are taking their comments awfully personally (another reason to avoid COI editing, of course). They are not disparaging your husband's work by asking for citations to verify information in the article. The reality is that Wikipedia is an anonymously authored internet publication open to editing by anyone. We cannot take anything on trust, there must be external sources to verify every piece of information. If that verification is not available then that is a shame, but it does not change anything – Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth.

Overall I would advise you to take a step back from this situation and leave your husband's article alone. It is not usually a good idea for the subject of an article or their family/friends to be involved in editing it. We are an encyclopaedia, we write articles about people, not on their behalf. Joe Roe (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• If a museum acquires an artwork for its permanent collection, they catalog it. Many now publish their catalogs online, even of pieces they are not currently displaying. If they do not, it may be difficult to determine that they really have acquired it, but for a major museum it is usually possible. That does not mean they have to show an image on their web site,or even that they ever display it, it just means there has to be some accessible proof that they have actually acquired it. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The only museum Robert is in that publishes its catalog online is the Whitney. They used to have thumbnails, now they only have names, including his. We have found online references for some, some others will be in his bibliography. The others will involve days and weeks of digging. Many of the pieces were acquired in the '70s and '80s. I'm very tied up with work at the moment, but I'm on it and will place the citationa on the Talk page with a declared COI. Ok?Eperless (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eperless: If you decide to just stay on the talk page, as others have suggested, you can use the {{Request edit}} template to get someone's attention with an edit (or list of edits) you want someone to make to the article. When doing this, make sure (1) you disclose your COI; (2) you make it perfectly clear what you want changed or added, and where; and (3) make sure everything is already well-sourced. In my experience, editors will not go hunting for sources for a requested edit.

When using the template, just fill in the section title with something like "Edit request" or something like that, type (exactly as it appears on the page, not in the edit window here) {{Request edit}}, hit enter, and type out your request. Using the template (which generates the message seen here) will add it to the page Category:Requested edits.

Also, I realize we have a lot of rules on this site. Some of them have annoyed me at times. But the rules are there so we don't go off the deep end and become a site that people don't depend on at all. That would lead to, I'm sure, the shut down of the site. (I apologize if that last bit didn't make sense.)

-- Gestrid (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Gastrid. You are always very helpful.Eperless (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Upload a picture

Hello,

I tried to upload a logo from a company a couple of times and never succeeded. I always faced a error message telling me that "something went wrong" and that " it is unconstructive".

{{autotranslate|base=Abusefilter-warning-baduploads}}

How could I go over this problem...? Thank you for your help

Franz101085 (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Franz101085
Looking at your contributions, I see no deleted edits on en.wikipedia, but one on Commons. Were you trying to load a logo at Commons?
Logos need to be loaded up at en.wikipedia, under a claim of fair use - please see Wikipedia:Logos but you need an WP:Autoconfirmed account to do that, whereas your account was only created yesterday, so you will need to apply for someone else to do it at Wikipedia:Files for upload - Arjayay (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Big thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz101085 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Is Huffington Post considered a reliable Wikipedia source?

Some people say it is a blog, others say it has quite some reviewing policies in place. Can Huffington Post be used as a reliable Wikipedia source?S Khemadhammo (talk) 07:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It depends on what it is being used for, S Khemadhammo. See the many discussions found by this search. --ColinFine (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, although it still seems pretty inconclusive to me.S Khemadhammo (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey S Khemadhammo. The reliability requirement of sources works on kindof a sliding scale. The bigger the claim, the more reliable the source needs to be, and visa versa.

On the low end you have things like social media sources, which are perfectly acceptable for mundane and uncontroversial personal details, like where a person was born or where they went to university.

On the high end you have things like medical claims which generally need peer reviewed scholarly research, or even scholarly reviews across multiple published works.

Additionally, many otherwise unreliable sources are perfectly acceptable as a way to say what that source said. For example, you can quote an interview to say Johnny told the Devil "you son of a gun, I'm the best there's ever been", but you couldn't use that interview to simply say Johnny was the best fiddle player of all time.

Hope this helps. TimothyJosephWood 12:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It does, User:Timothyjosephwood. Thank you all very much! I'll remember the example, lol.S Khemadhammo (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

how to add a map to an article

hello there, i m new to wikipedia and writing on my first article about a papuan language. i want to add a map of papua new guinea and highlight the area where the language is spoken. i found this free to use map on wikipedia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Papua_New_Guinea_location_map.svg. and i saw that lots of other people used this map in their article,eg. for an airport and they added where is it, in the map. my question now is, how do i do this? i tried downloading the map, which worked and editing it in paint. but i couldnt save the edits. from what i read about this map it is okay to do this, am i righ here? so basically i want to know how i can add something to this mentioned papua new guinea map. thank you very much already, best wishes. JohaAu (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

This question has already been answered at the Help Desk. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid: That doesn't mean that we can't answer it here too. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 05:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello JohaAu and welcome to the Treehouse. You don't need to edit the image itself and reupload it. You can just use an appropriate infobox for the article and input the name of the location map along with the coordinates of whatever the infobox is for. You can look at an example that I did here. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 05:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Correction It is Teahouse not Treehouse! VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 11:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Answered at help desk help offered. VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 11:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This is true, VarunFEB2003. This is not Nintendo Treehouse. Also, we should probably have an article about Nintendo Treehouse. -- Gestrid (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

How to write an article?

I don't know how to write an article. I am an activist who needs to get her word out. I think Wikipedia would be a good option for me, but I am new to editing. Can anyone give me a few pointers in the right direction? Thanks! Near the Activist NearTheActivist (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. No, Wikipedia is not an option to get your word out. Wikipedia articles are about subjects which have already received significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject, and it is not for use for promotion or as a soapbox. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)