Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 543

Archive 540

Archive 541

Archive 542

Archive 543

Archive 544

Archive 545

→

Archive 550

Is the use of embedded external links ever acceptable?

Hello Teahousers. Take the following text (from a draft article) with embedded links to external websites and to GitHub:

Calliope is a energy system modeling framework, with a focus on flexibility, high spatial and temporal resolution, and the ability to execute different runs using the same base-case dataset. The project is being developed at the Department of Environmental Systems Science, ETH Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland. The project maintains a website, another website for documentation, hosts the codebase at GitHub, operates an issues tracker, and runs two email lists. Calliope is written in Python and uses the Pyomo library.

Is this use of embedded external links acceptable? I realize that Wikipedia:Citing sources § Avoid embedded links clearly states:

Embedded links should never be used to place external links in the content of an article, like this: "Apple, Inc. announced their latest product...".

But is this example an exception? Indeed, under Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, Wikipedia policies are ultimately for guidance and not absolute. I feel that migrating these embedded links to {{cite web}} templates makes them more obscure and represents a step backwards. Any counsel gratefully received. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison: Welcome to the Teahouse. I do not see this as a valid case of "ignore all rules" and it looks to me like an attempt to spam a bunch of websites into a Wikipedia article. I think that a large percentage of experienced editors would be inclined to push back strongly against this content. If all of these websites are worthy of mention in an encyclopedia, it is because independent reliable sources discuss them, not Calliope itself. As encyclopedists, we have very little interest in what Calliope says about itself, and instead summarize what other publications say about it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Cullen328. Many thanks for your prompt response. I based my writing in part on several articles describing software, with the GNU Linear Programming Kit entry being one such example. That page, with no specific references and a long list of external links, would doubtless fall under the criticism of being insufficiently encyclopedic (although the software has been covered in several academic papers and textbooks). The problem is that while Calliope (for instance) has been covered in journals (including Energy and Applied Energy), these papers tend to focus on results and not structure. Valuable background information (such as licensing details and programming language) are only available from project websites and self-published software documentation. I guess the conclusion is that the bulk of the information must come from reliable secondary sources, duly cited. Once again, I appreciate your informative reply. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

How to change a title/headword

Hi I'm a very fresh 'beginner' in editing on Wikipedia. And I have a question In the English Wikipedia there is a page titled "House of Elzevir" Although it might be a phonetic correct 'translation' and also at present sometimes used by family members (descendants), the correct spelling - as used and in multiple historical literature, in official registries, and not in the least: by the family itself - is and has always been "Elsevier" and "Elzevier". So my proposal would be to change the title of the mentioned page in "House of Elsevier, Elzevier or Elzevir" or something similar. Is this possible and if yes how. Thanks DElsevier DElsevier (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello DElsevier, welcome to the Teahouse. The standards for naming articles on Wikipedia are described by the article titles policy. That policy takes a long time to read, but it ultimately boils down to this: an article title should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent. It should also be supported by reliable sources. If you think "Elsevier" or "Elzevier" would be a better title under the policy, you can change it by "moving" the article to a new title. While signed in, go to the dropdown menu that says "More" to the right of "View History". The option "Move" should be listed there, and that should allow you to enter a new title for the article (see image). You can also navigate straight to Special:MovePage/House of Elzevir. Make sure you specify the reason for moving so that other editors will understand why you did so, and after you move the article, make sure you edit the content of the article itself so that the title remains consistent. Finally, the House of Elzevir article doesn't seem to have that many references. You mentioned "Elsevier" or "Elzevier" are used in historical literature: I would add a citation to those reliable sources in the body of the article to support your title change. If you find yourself confused, feel free to ask for help here at this Teahouse again. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to add to that:

The procedure described above is for uncontroversial moves. There is a more formal procedure for moves that are potentially controversial, which is explained at WP:Requested moves. In case of minor doubts, it is also possible to start an informal discussion at Talk:House of Elzevir to see if it appears likely that anyone would contest the move. I believe the article started life based on the article Elzevir in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, which suggested that that spelling was more common in English (actually, that is not exactly what they said, but you can read it online). Another consideration might be the avoidance of confusion with the modern publishing house. --Boson (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Articles

I really want to write some good articles and am a bit rusty because was not here, but I'm back. So I want format any articles or write some good articles. Help me with the ideas please. Yours sincerely,Ema (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried clicking the "random article" link, fifth from the top in the menu to the left of this and other pages? Most Wikipedia articles have scope for improvement. If you get an article on something boring, just click again. Maproom (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I have added factual information with appropriate citations and my edits are being deleted.

The article I am editing is on Shiva Ayyadurai. I have only added factual, cited information that gives context to what has already been written, yet my minor edits are being deleted by, what appears to be, a few folks who have commandeered this page? Any advice on how to ensure that factual information makes it on to Wikipedia without someone arbitrarily deleting it??

Thank you. Newark Latina (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Newark Latina. You may not have realized it, but your edit changed more than just the one sentence; you inadvertently removed the infobox from the top of the article. The editor who reverted your edit, Barte, noticed what you were trying to do, and changed the article to make it clear that Ayyadurai's claim is very much disputed. Your edit was factual, and the editor realized this. They only initially reverted you because you removed more than you intended to. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Your edit was most obviously not a "minor edit". Please read Help:Minor edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Editors should also be aware that this article has recently been plagued by newly-minted accounts making remarkably similar pov edits ... richi (hello) 00:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Boxes

What are the boxes called that are things that you like? Royals402 (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Royals402, they are called "userboxes". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Signature

How can I make a cool signature and make it official? Royals402 (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

See WP:CUSTOMSIG – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

www.wilsonowners-archives.co.org/Web/Images/News/Extensions/Article/Talk: Regular expression/Links/Dl.Intl.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.241.56.227 (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2016‎ (UTC)

References

Did you have a question about editing Wikipedia? --David Biddulph (talk) 04:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I create the page. But how I make it live? Help me please

I create the page. But how I make it live? Help me please BuVaSh (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi BuVaSh. Is Wikipedia:Pavel Fedotov (MMA/Muay Thai Trainer) the page you've created? You seem to have mistakenly moved the page to the "Wikipedia" namespace which is generally only used for policies, guidelines, essays or other community pages related to editing. Articles belong in the article namespace. I have taken a look at the page and think that it might be agood idea for you to request that the page be moved back to the draft namespace or your userspace so that you can continue to work on it because right now it does not look like it's quite ready for article status. Not only are there a number of formatting issues which need to resolved, but it is also not clear if Fedetov satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Notability based upon the sources you've provided. I will post something at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts and see if someone more familiar with these types of articles can provide you with some more specific advice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I am prepared to be bold and move it to Draft:Pavel Fedotov. Putting it in Wikipedia space was clearly a good-faith mistake. It doesn't need disambiguation because there isn't another Pavel Fedotov. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the help.

There is one Pavel Fedotov already, he is a artist. When I try google Pavel Fedotov, and nothing show up on wikipedia. What does it means? I am tottaly new on wikipedia , and I dont know how it works. BuVaSh (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. There is a Pavel Fedotov, so the martial artist will require disambiguation if he is accepted. I don't understand the question about Google. I do get the Wikipedia article if I Google on him. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@BuVaSh:: I'm not sure why, but you've moved the page back to the Wikipedia namespace at Wikipedia:Pavel Fedotov even though you were told above that this is something you really should not be doing. You also seem to have created Pavel Fedotov (Professional Muaythai and MMA coach)) by copying and pasting content from your draft into the article namespace which is also not really how articles should be created. I think it might be a good idea for you to slow down a bit and ask for assistance with page moves,etc. because you are starting to create problems which are eventually going to require an administrator to clean up. Copy and paste moves are not really advisable because of the potential problems doing so can create with the page's edit history. There are now two "articles" that need fixing instead of one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Make that four problem "articles", as there is also Pavel Fedotov (Professional Muaythai and MMA Coach) (without the double bracket), and Template:Pavel Fedotov. There is also a redirect left at Help:Pavel Fedotov (Professional Muaythai and MMA Coach). --David Biddulph (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

So , better me to wait when it everything will be fixing? BuVaSh (talk) 09:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I have moved the draft back. While you wait for the rest of the mess to be sorted out, read the links you have been given above, and also read WP:Your first article, Help:Referencing for beginners, and other links from WP:Welcome. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest Pavel Fedotov (Professional Muaythai and MMA Coach) be deleted since it is the same as the Draft article.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

That article is truly a mess. It should be moved back to the proper Draft space and cleaned up a lot. No the subject did not win lots of medals - they are apparently won by people he has trained and frankly those connections aren't supported by references. It really is hard to commit to notability but yes BuVaSh wait until everything is moved to the correct place and do not move it into article space yourself.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

When you admitted that you were totally new in Wikipedia and didn't know how it works, you should have realized that meant to leave things alone while more experienced editors sorted things out. As it is, you have made a real mess, and it will try our patience just to get things back to how they were. Consider this a warning to you that inappropriate efforts to fix things that actually break things may result in your being blocked from editing due to Competence is required. As I said, your original mistake, in creating the draft in Wikipedia space, was a good faith mistake, but continuing to create copies of the draft was not helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for advices. BuVaSh (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

how my content will be approved and public now?

dear sir, I would like to know how can i public my content in Wikipedia. I doubted why i got message that my content has been deleted. how can i do? could you help me for approving my posting content.

Thanks and Regards. Natpn (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The words in blue on your user talk page are wikilinks to pages which you need to read. Promotional meterial wil not be published on Wikipedia. If you have factual material supported by references to published reliable sources independent of the subject, read WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:35, Today (UTC+0)

@Natpn: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your article called "A wonderful place Mokoju peak" has been deleted three times by three different administrators in a period of about five hours. They all agree that your article was unambiguous advertising or promotion. The title of your article is problematic, since we do not call things "wonderful" here, but instead describe things neutrally. So, the first thing that I should say is that you must stop trying to use Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. Please read an essay called Your first article and comply with all of its recommendations. I suggest that you use the Articles for Creation process for future attempts. Your draft article will be reviewed by an experienced editor, greatly increasing the likelihood that it will stay on Wikipedia if it is accepted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Accidentally moved my talk page to mainspace

Hi, I was trying to post the content on my sandbox onto the mainspace but I think I accidentally posted my talk page instead? I'm not completely sure but once I realized and tried to go to my sandbox to try it again, it wouldn't let me move it because the name of the article was "taken" (I used the title when I unintentionally was moving my talk page). Please let me know if you can help! I currently posted the article under a different related name but I would like to stick with my first title choice if possible! Thanks Malikaih (talk) 07:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I've moved your talk page back and am clearing up other stuff. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Use of gray literature

I am drafting an article on open (source) energy system models, a class of computer model primarily used to simulate and optimize national energy systems. I am becoming increasingly confused as to what constitutes a "reliable, published source" (quote from WP:VERIFY), particularly in relation to what might be regarded as gray literature. I have a concrete example:

Daly, Hannah E; Fais, Birgit (November 2014). UK TIMES model: overview. London, United Kingdom: UCL Energy Institute. Retrieved 2016-11-13.

This document is written by researchers at UCL, London. It is well-structured, well written, and contains 7 references. It has been published insofar as it is downloadable from an academic (.ac.uk) website. It would be perfectly acceptable as a citation in a scientific publication. Yet while it is clearly not a secondary source, nor independent, does it class as a reliable source for Wikipedia? Can and should it be used? My next question involves software documentation:

Pfenninger, Stefan (10 March 2016). Calliope documentation — Release 0.3.7 (PDF). Retrieved 2016-11-13.

This example of gray literature does not list a publisher and is not associated with an academic domain name. It would also be acceptable as an academic citation in the right circumstances. What is its status then, given it has fewer credentials than the first example (even though Calliope is a research project at ETH Zurich)? Many thanks in advance. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that both of these are primary sources, and so can be cited, but only in the limited way that primary sources can be. --ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison: Reliability and independence are separate attributes of sources. A source may be reliable but not independent, while another source may be independent but not reliable. When a given topic has received significant coverage in published sources that are both reliable and independent, then the topic is considered notable, and is probably eligible for a Wikipedia article. Once notability has been established, then basic non-controversial details can be filled in using primary (non-independent) sources. In the case of an article about a corporation, for example, their founding date, headquarters location and CEO's name might be referenced to their website. But their website or other primary source cannot be used for evaluative statements. A Wikipedia article should be written from the neutral point of view, and should bear no resemblance to a company website or marketing brochure, though many editors try to write articles that way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine and Cullen328. Thanks for your replies. Your explanations make things much clearer. I looked at some length at the Wikipedia policies on this matter, but they were scattered over several pages and difficult to interpret. In addition, it seems that the use of existing articles as a prototype may not work, given that editorial standards are steadily rising. This seems particularly true for articles covering software. Indeed I see many that would clearly fail the current articles for creation process, particularly in terms of substantiation. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

my tablet was stolen. any possible way to track activity on it?

My tablet was stolen. Anyway to track activity on it?Big text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.18.105 (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. This page is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. We can't offer advice on how to track a stolen tablet. I'm sure you can find advice on that via a Google search, but if not, consider asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Uploading a school seal

Hi, I'm currently creating an article about my alma mater, and I was wondering how to upload the official seal of the school. I've been reading up on the Wiki pages on uploading non-free logos and the image use policy, as well as having a look at already-uploaded school seals as a point of reference, but it still seems pretty confusing.

I'd just like a clearer and simpler explanation of the right way of uploading a school seal. Thanks!

Gkomarnicki (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Gkomarnicki. Click Upload file in the left sidebar and start the Upload Wizard. In step 3 click “This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use.” and “This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc.” and “This image will be shown as a primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question.” —teb728 t c 08:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and in the textbox where it ask you to explain how the use is minimal, say something like "The logo is of a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the university, without being unnecessarily high resolution." —teb728 t c 08:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

One more thing Gkomarnicki: If this is for your draft article, wait until the draft has been published. A non-free image can be used only in an article (not a draft), and it may not be uploaded unless it is used in an article. —teb728 t c 08:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Reliance scams

I have separate section for RCOM scams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgangwani35 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Pgangwani35. If you want to persuade other editors to accept your changes, discuss them at Talk:List of Reliance scams —teb728 t c 09:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

search using intitle

To search for all page titles containing a certain string, use the code intitle:ology. But that would only search for pages containing Ology with an uppercase. How would I search for all pages with ology? NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Nikolaiho. As you suggest, the first of these two templates is close to what you want:

• Template:In title — creates a link to search for page titles which contain given words
• Template:Look from — creates link to list all pages beginning with given words

But the action is to search for entire words, meaning "ology" and "Ology" but not "*ology". For more flexible searches, using regular expressions (or regexes), you need to invoke an external tool: https://tools.wmflabs.org/grep/index.php Enter the following regex in the Pattern dialog: .*ology.*. My test gave 13173 hits, including "Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation" as an example (and a disambiguation page as it happens). For a more restrictive search, try .*ology$, which limits the search to titles ending with "ology". This tool is, of course, not a template like {{In title}}. With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Category Creation Did Not Go Well

Reference this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_archives

Instead of creating the Category under the letter "I" for "List of archives in Italy" it placed the category at the top of the page where it does not belong. How do I fix this? Zcarstvnz (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The other pages in Category:Lists of archives are list articles, but Category:List of archives in Italy is a category, and hence a sub-category of the parent category. Your new category is, however, empty. Did you perhaps intend to create a list article analogous to those for other countries? --David Biddulph (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to create the listing "List of archives in Italy." The subcategory at the top of the page is empty because I deleted the link from the following page.

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

Zcarstvnz (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

On looking further I see that the page List of archives in Italy already exists. It wasn't a member of Category:Lists of archives, but I've added it now. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! But how do I fix the problem with the "Subcategories" at the top of the page (that shouldn't exist)? Zcarstvnz (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

You'll see that Category:Archives in Italy exists, so it was perhaps that category which you ought to add to Fondo Egone Missio Archives? If your new category was created in error, you can tag it for deletion by adding {{Db-author}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific about how to delete the category. I've never deleted anything on Wikipedia, and I want to make sure I do this correctly after my earlier mistake today. Thanks! Zcarstvnz (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Only an administrator can delete the category, but if you paste {{Db-author}} to the top of the page, that will flag it as being requested for deletion. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Zcarstvnz: I'm an administrator and have deleted Category:List of archives in Italy. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

how should I create a wiki page about my friend for his birthday

I'm really confused since I just started here I came to learn to create and edit wiki pages and I wanted to make one for my friend about them what should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VxBunny (talk • contribs) 12:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, VxBunny, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unless your person is notable, which I doubt, you should not. Wikipedia is not a social network, among other things, but an encyclopedia about notable topics. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok thank you VxBunny (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VxBunny (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I linked to a wiki page that doesn't yet exist

I just edited the Glen Eyrie page, added some information, and linked to the Queen's Canyon wiki page. Then I realized that Queen's Canyon does not yet exist as a Wikipedia page. Should I leave the link, or remove it? I will likely start an article for Queen's Canyon sometime in the next couple weeks. Thanks for the help!EvelynHope22 (talk) 06:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It's OK to leave a redlink if you intent to write an article. Just one small point is that in Glen Eyrie you didn't link to Queen's Canyon but to Queen’s Canyon (with a curly apostrophe); you ought to correct that. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello EvelynHope22. Just to note that straight or typewriter apostrophes ' and double quotes " are preferred under MOS:CURLY. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for the feedback. I will fix the error. EvelynHope22 (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You changed it to yet another wrong character. You changed it from Queen’s Canyon to Queen′s Canyon (with a prime character), so I have now changed it to Queen's Canyon. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

On the page "Vai Taua," people have been vandalizing the page and I was wondering how I can protect it.

Vai Taua refer to caption Taua in 2010 as a college football player at Nevada. No. 16 Tennessee Titans Position: Running back Personal information Date of birth: October 11, 1988 (age 28) Place of birth: Fountain Valley, California Height: 5 ft 10 in (1.78 m) Weight: 225 lb (102 kg) Career information College: My naan Undrafted: 2011 Career history Buffalo Bills (2011)* Seattle Seahawks (2011)*, (2012)tennessee Titans 2015 - present

* Offseason and/or practice squad member only

Roster status: Free Agent MON5T3R (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you meant in the content, but basing off of your title, if you are not a administrator, you can not protect pages. If you want to protect it, suggest it to Requests for Protection, while in the mean time, keep on your tippy toes and quickly undo vandalism.—JJBers|talk 17:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I see no vandalism in the edit history of Vai Taua, and no reason to want to protect it. Maproom (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Maproom, this edit looks like vandalism. But it is the only one I see. MON5T3R, adding the template {{pp-vandalism}} to the page has no effect whatever. If you want to request protection, you need to do it at WP:RPP. --ColinFine (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone has vandalized Government of Estonia

Some people have put names of random people in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Estonia someone please revert the change. What can we do?

Monkke (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I see you have reverted the changes, Monkke. If this happens often, the page can be semi-protected; but that will not normally be done unless there is repeated vandalism. What you could do which would provide some protection against vandalism is to add some citations to the article: at the moment it is almost unreferenced, and therefore of not much value: I can't easily tell whether your changes are more accurate than the other person's. --ColinFine (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Where to make page for a person who is a founder of some company

where to make page for a person who is founder of some companyVaibhavJha (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, VaibhavJha. The first thing to realise is that creating a new article is hard: I always advise new editors to spend at least a few weeks improving existing articles, and getting an idea of how Wikipedia works, before they try creating a new article. The second thing to realise is that Wikipedia does not contain "pages for" people, or "profiles": it contains "articles about" people and other subjects, which are written in a neutral tone, and summarise what reliable sources, independent of the subject, have published about the subject. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what a subjects says or wants to say about themselves, or what their friends, relatives, employees, agents, or associates say about them. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about them. If there are such high-quality indepedent sources, then there may be an article; but if these do not exist, then there is literally nothing that can go into the article. The Wikipedia jargon for this is whether or not they are notable: a company founder might be notable, but might not: it depends entirely on whether independent sources have written about him. Finally, Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiography.

If you wish to take this further, please read your first article carefully, and use the article wizard to create a draft in Draft space. --ColinFine (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Side bit with picture

Hello everyone

I was wondering how you add the side bit were it's has a picture and description because I'm new and I'm making a page I need help please.

Thanks Pat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padders8 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Pat. It's called an infobox. But really, it's the icing on the cake. The important part of an article is getting the high-quality independent published sources, and writing text based on what they say. If you don't get these, the article is likely to be deleted (as you have just seen at Rip Dawgs). Please read your first article carefully. --ColinFine (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A section of my article was removed.

A section of Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. Middle School was just removed.

In essence: In the 1920s, a man went into this school, asked the registrar for a child, Marion Parker, to be released to him, and then he murdered her. This was a big headline crime. The Los Angeles would refer to this as "the most horrible crime of the 1920s."

Combined with the notoriety of the case, the Marion Parker article says "Hickman abducted Marion from Mount Vernon Junior High School", so I thought it should be briefly mentioned this as part of the school's history.

But it was deleted with the reason being "this is not about the school, it just happened to start at the school)'.

Am I wrong in how I saw this? Or am I not even supposed to ask that? Am I just supposed to revert the edit and add a comment on the talk page? But then doesn't that just become a "my opinion vs. your opinion" situation? I guess I am just looking for some guidelines as to how wikipedia works? Help. HedgeHogPower (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It might or might not belong in the article, depending on how relevant it is to the school. The best thing to do would probably be to contact the other editor on their talk page or post on the article talk page to get more opinions. From what you're saying, I would favor inclusion of that statement. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with White Arabian Filly. That incident is something the school (with its rather unfortunate history) is notable for. And I would prefer the discussion to be on the article's talk page, where there will be more eyes on it. Maproom (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate for the quick input. I reverted the deletion and started a section on the Talk page. This is all new to me. Please be patient. Thanks.HedgeHogPower (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

why my article is subjected to deletion?

What exactly is wrong with my article; draft: Taskford? what am i advertizing or promoting? what email address or phone is written except web pages of the company the article is about? what personal interest does the article have? what social media links does the article have?

Here yourself say: "Please be specific in your question rather than general".

Could a wikipedian be more specific and not general on why my article is subjected to deletion?

Someone should answer these questions, please.

Nedemekhocam0907 (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nedemekhocam0907: Are you asking about your unsubmitted draft Draft:Taskford or your usurping Social recruiting for the benefit of Taskford? The draft is not up for deletion; it is the usurpation that has been reverted. —teb728 t c 09:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Two previous incarnations of the draft have been deleted. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't read the three deleted versions of the draft, because I am not an administrator and cannot read deleted material. However, when an article is on a general topic, such as Social recruiting, attempting to make it into an advertisement for a company that is one of various companies in the field is extremely improper, and you were trying to change an article from a general concept to an advertisement. I disagree with the details of the warning that you were given, because your conduct was not, in my opinion, vandalism, but it was just as serious as if it had been vandalism; it was spam. If you try to insert a mention of your company into any general articles, I would support an indefinite block. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Nedemekhocam0907: I happened to see the third version of your draft before it was deleted. The whole draft was blatantly promotional. You ask "what am i advertizing or promoting?" You were trying to adertize something called "Taskford". Whether Taskford is a company, or a platform, or a web site, or all of these, was unclear from the draft. Maproom (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Maproom,

Thanks for your enlightment, really appreciate it. The thing is that I am new to Wikipedia articles but researched a lot before writing a piece of the article. And I got stuck at a point when I see similar articles that are not in the situation as you classified mine as a blatant promotion. The thing is Toptal article promotional or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toptal?

How about Fiverr: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiverr?

In what ways is my article diff from those mentioned except the references I don't currently have?

And mind you, having no references yet is why the article is in draft.

I'd be more than excited if you could help me with this.

Nedemekhocam0907 (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Nedemekhocam0907 - You don't seem to be paying attention. You seem to still be asking us how to use Wikipedia to promote Taskford. That isn't the purpose of Wikipedia, and it isn't the focus of the Wikipedia volunteers here at the Teahouse. We aren't planning to help you, and any excitement on your part is misplaced. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Robert and those who have contributed to this, I'd say I'm sorry for any misunderstanding I might have caused so far.

what should i do now? could someone help me out with this?

Nedemekhocam0907 (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Nedemekhocam0907 - What is your question? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

An old photo

This is in regards to Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. Middle School again. As the school was originally built as a replica of George Washington's Mount Vernon, I tried to track down a picture. I did. (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:00027411_mtvernonschool.jpg)

I assumed this was fair use, looking at the photo and seeing the model T's. Stupid me. The school was constructed in 1925 and opened in '26. Fair use, I think, means the photo has to be from before 1923. The photo came from this site and is credited to the Los Angles Public Library: http://derangedlacrimes.com/?tag=mt-vernon-junior-high-school

Is there any other way this photo can be used on wikipedia. If not, do I simply delete it from the commons or do I need to do something more than that? HedgeHogPower (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@HedgeHogPower: on Commons, you would tag the image page with {{SD|G7}}, which is a speedy deletion request to delete your own upload. See Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Matthew Curtis (composer)

I reviewed Draft:Matthew Curtis (composer) and declined it as not meeting notability. The author, User:SCL1958, then posted to my talk page: Thank you for reviewing this submission. As this has been rejected by several different reviewers for differing reasons, and as I see from some of the discussion on your Talk page that you have been kind enough to help take submissions through to completion and approve in the past, I would be very grateful if you would do likewise for mine.

The issue you highlight is notability. As we are all aware, classical music is a niche, living composers of it yet more so. Unless a composer has written film music, which the subject of this draft review has not, he or she will be somewhat obscure. Still, in this world, Matthew Curtis is notable for the number of recordings and performances (radio broadcasts are the most easily verifiable and hence partially quoted), and his music has been reviewed in the industry magazine Gramophone (see various references in the draft), referenced in a book (ref 14), reviewed in "The Spectator" (ref 16) which is absolutely not an industry publication, and has even been performed in the presence of HM the Queen (ref 12). There is also a reference to him in an existing Wikipedia article (English Music Festival).
If we can agree that this is sufficient to establish notability, the issue may be that I have done a poor job of ensuring this is clear to the reader, and I would welcome any suggestions you have to ensure I get this right.

Kind regards UserSCL 1958 I would like the comments of other experienced editors. Was I, as the last declining reviewer, too harsh? Does anyone have advice to User:UserSCL1958? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Clicking through the provided sources, trivial coverage seems to be a theme in all of them. The ones I looked at ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) all mention Curtis in the most passing way possible, and many are simply track listings. While it is important to have citations for claims about what work the artist has done, and where these have been played, these do not constitute nontrivial coverage per WP:MUSBIO, and do not contribute to notability for the purposes of Wikipedia.

The challenge here is not to demonstrate that the individual, as a composer, has composed works and that those works have been performed. Professional composers, do these things by definition, and being a professional composer in and of itself is not qualifying for an article. Rather, the challenge is to demonstrate that, among composers, this individual in particular is somehow exceptional and important such that they warrant their own article. This requires in depth coverage and not merely track listings or passing single sentence mentions in sources otherwise centrally about a different topic all together. TimothyJosephWood 17:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood:With respect, you seem to have omitted to look at all at such reviews (refs 17 through 20 in the Gramophone, 2 and 21/22 in MusicWeb International) that are devoted to or have a significant section devoted to the composer. And while I grant that several references merely substantiate the claim of performances on radio made in the submission, several others that mention rather than centre on Curtis would rather tend to support the contention that he is notable - why mention him in a book about Coates if he is not notable (ref 14)? Why describe listening to his CD in an article starting with inspirational English teaching (ref 16)? Why mention him as having been performed at the English Music Festival in the article on your site? This is not a composer of atonal music, where there are awards say, or of film music, where you can quote box office, or of popular music, where you can point to charts. This is light classical music, which while much played on radio and much loved by many, is not exactly mainstream, and most listeners of my generation hardly haunt the internet.UserSCL1958 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@UserSCL1958:, as far as trivial mentions go, the community consensus that formed WP:MUSBIO was to exclude them for the purposes of establishing notability. That's pretty much a settled matter as far as you and I are concerned, because WP-wide policy consensus is difficult to achieve and as much or more so to change.

Looking at the sources you point out, yes, these are the types of sources that are needed to establish notability. Digging around on the internet I also found this short online review, this review by the Federation of Recorded Music Societies and this (archive version) very in-depth review by the British Music Society. I would suggest a bit more digging to try to find more sources like this. It is difficult given his generic name. I found these by searching for the names of his works in quotations, and his last name outside quotations.

For the sources you have, I would try to incorporate as much non-promotional information as is relevant. For example, regarding the English Music Festival, instead of saying He has been commissioned to compose for the English Music Festival instead say something like Curtis was commissioned to compose for the English Music Festival in 2008, for which he wrote his Festival Overture. The piece opened the final concert of the event and was performed by Southern Sinfonia and the London Chorus, directed by Ronald Corp.

I haven't found where Curtis has been the recipient of any industry awards, but if this is so it would also be helpful.

All in all, I don't think the draft has reached the point where the simply isn't any additional information available, and I don't think anyone has argued yet that the subject isn't inherently non-notable; just that there can be some work done in readily demonstrating this. TimothyJosephWood 15:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood:Thank you very much for this feedback, that is most helpful, and I will incorporate your suggestions. I am fairly sure there are no awards but will look again: as you can probably gather I am not hugely competent at ferreting stuff out of the internet. Many thanks for taking the time and for your swift response.UserSCL1958 (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Can I revert a 4th time within 24 hours, under certain circumstances?

A controversial page is being edited by people who don't want certain information to appear on the page. Information that is referenced using reliable sources, is deleted again and again, by users who keep editing and reverting. It even seems a user reverts more than 3 times within 24 hours, but using an IP address instead of their account, to prevent getting penalised.

My Questions:

• What is the proper step to take in such a situation?
• Am I allowed to revert a fourth time within 24h, if others people keep editing maliciously?

Some more background info: Last year a Hungarian camerawoman was recorded kicking refugees. This incident is on Wikipedia as the Petra László tripping incident. This page is mostly being watched mostly by Hungarian nationals, who tried to get the article deleted, or remove information that they did not like. On the Talk page, someone is claiming her innocence (quote " SHE COULD NOT TRIP HIM") and saying the media is biased. All while quickly reverting my edits. Any guidance is welcome.

Amin (Talk) 12:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Amin. Generally no. There are few exceptions to Wikipedia policy on edit warring, such as WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO. These are clear cases where, for legal reasons, it may actually be vitally important whether content remains while differences are discussed. Otherwise, if you have to split hairs over whether or not you are edit warring, you are probably in dangerous territory anyway.

Overall, Wikipedia takes a long view on getting things right. It is most often the case that it is more important that an article is eventually correct and stable, and usually not terribly important that an article is right this very second, although it often seems that way to those involved in a content dispute.

I have commented on the article talk regarding some basic issues of sources, and will try to follow the discussion there as best I can. Otherwise, the best advice is to follow the dispute resolution process until a consensus can be reached. TimothyJosephWood 13:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for insights @Timothyjosephwood:. I agree with the long view of getting things right. My initial try to contribute to this page was weeks, if not months ago. And the same forces who removed my contributions then, are doing it again now. I am afraid that giving it another cooling period, will fail again. However, I will look into the Dispute Resolution Process if this continues. Amin (Talk) 15:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Amin: After reviewing the source in question, I have restored the original wording in the lead. As I indicated on the article talk, using pictures and youtube videos to extrapolate a conclusion not supported by reliable secondary sources is original research. For future reference, blatant violations of the Wikipedia prohibition on original research may also be reported to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, after, of course, making good faith attempts to resolve the issue on talk. TimothyJosephWood 15:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the comments of the previous editors, but I will add a few comments. First, if, as you say, there are frequent reverts from IP addresses, you don't know that those are registered editors editing logged out, but you do know that that is edit-warring by unregistered editors, and you can request semi-protection. What will probably happen may be either semi-protection or full protection. In either case, you should discuss on the article talk page. Second, you ask whether there are exceptions to the 3RR rule for malicious editing. That would require judges to decide which editor is malicious, and we very seldom have judges. As mentioned, discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll add that 3RR doesn't really apply in cases of obvious vandalism or libel. I've seen an editor revert an IP-hopping vandal a dozen times in the space of a few hours before the article got protected or the IP range was blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, those are exceptions to the 3RR rule. However, an editor should be very sure that they are on the side of Wikipedia (not merely the side of right and truth) before relying on those exceptions, or they could face the situation of both editors being blocked for 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

do you get paid

Can you get paid for the work you do by editing or is this strictly voluntary work?Donny65 (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Almost all Wikipedia editors are unpaid volunteers. Indeed, many (but not all) types of paid editing are forbidden in Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy). Gandalf61 (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Mohamad Fakih

I reviewed Draft:Mohamad Fakih and declined it as reading like an advertisement. The author, User:Aliseca, then posted to my talk page:

Hi Robert, I've added more citations and changed the wordings to be more neutural. I was wondering what else I am able to change for it to be reviewed again.

I see that it has been reviewed again, and declined. I will note that I didn’t decline for notability, but for tone, and that adding citations doesn’t address tone. The second reviewer is pessimistic and doesn’t think that the businessman or their business is notable. Do other experienced editors want to comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

How can I get a company's Page Created

I have tried multiple times to write about a new e-commerce, but it gets deleted.

Please provide me a valuable feedback so that I can improve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wish%27nBuy Neha.duggal (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Neha.duggal: Wish'nBuy was deleted because it didn't indicate why Wish'nBuy is important enough to have an article in an encyclopedia. Draft:Wish'nBuy has not been deleted (at least not yet), but it was declined for being written like advertisement, and it has been nominated for deletion as unambiguously promotional. Wikipedia is for subjects that are important with articles written from a neutral point of view. —teb728 t c 10:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

How can I improve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.duggal (talk • contribs) 10:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Neha.duggal. The answer is probably that you can't. If it is, as you say, a new e-commerce, then it probably has not yet been written about in depth by multiple people who have no connection with it. Since Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what anybody or any organisation says or wants to say about themselves, but is only interested in summarising what independent people have published about a subject, if there is little such independent writing then there is literally nothing that can be put in the article, and you are not allowed to try. Please read your first article carefully, and understand that Wikipedia may not be used for promotion of any sort. --ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)