Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 301

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 295 ← Archive 299 Archive 300 Archive 301 Archive 302 Archive 303 → Archive 305

Customer Relationship Process -- article proposed for deletion

My article on the customer relationship process is a compilation of years of research, reading, hands-on experience and collaboration with colleagues and consultants. The sources are far too numerous to list but include business books and magazines, consulting company publicly available research and interviews with actual customers.

I was somewhat dismayed at the response from Wikipedia that said "this is not a place to post your schoolwork." It is not schoolwork but rather the culmination of years of research which describes a well-known and established business process that has been successfully implemented by hundreds of companies around the world.

I thought this work would be a helpful addition to your knowledge base and something that might benefit others in the future.

Please tell me what I need to do to successfully appeal this. If it is not possible, then thank you for your time.Bjemackey (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Bjemackey welcome to the teahouse. I'm sorry to say that from your description, at least if I'm understanding you, what you wrote simply isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. When you say that your article is "the culmination of years of research which describes a well-known and established business process" that means it is what wikipedia considers wp:original research and we don't publish OR here. That is no reflection on your work. If Wikipedia had been around when Einstein first wrote the theory of relativity we would have told him the same thing: "interesting idea Albert but you need to publish it in a physics journal before it is appropriate for Wikipedia". And that is what you need to do as well. There are plenty of journals on Customer Relationship Management or conferences, trade magazines like Infoworld, etc. With regard to the specific article, even if it wasn't OR it still would be rejected automatically because there were no wp:references In that sense we are like a good journal. You could never tell a journal editor: "oh I didn't include references because there would be too many". However, you can still contribute to Wikipedia if you want to. You can use your deep knowledge and experience with CRM to help add to and improve existing articles in the encyclopedia such as: Customer Relationship Management, Customer satisfaction, Customer knowledge, etc. But if you do that remember everything you say has to be backed up by good references not just your personal expertise. Hope that was clear, feel free to drop me a message on my talk page if you want to discuss further or of course to reply here. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry that User:Bjemackey had the misfortune of a WP editor deriding his research as "schoolwork," but I praise Bjemackey for bringing up the problem so nicely here. I hope that he or she takes User:MadScientistX11's advice and sticks around to help out in creating the encyclopedia. Cheers to both! GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@GeorgeLouis: thanks for the kind words. I agree the use of the phrase "schoolwork" was not at all appropriate, especially for a new user but really for any user. @Bjemackey: one of the most important values here is wp:civility and I think that other editor kind of dropped the ball there. I want to reiterate we could really use your help to edit many existing articles. I've had some experience with CRM products like Siebel and there are many articles on Customer Relationship processes and technologies that are IMO not up to the usual high standards of Wikipedia and could definitely use the help of experts like you to improve. If you want to discuss feel free to drop me a message on my talk page. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

[1] Thank you! Bananasoldier (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Seems to be, it is administered by professionals, and cannot simply be added to by any user. I would say yes, it is. Onel5969 (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

My article submission was not accepted due to copyrighted material. I need help identifying said material so that I can remove it

Hello! I am new to Wikipedia and I am trying to submit an article about a performer/educator/comedian from the Bay Area in California. I have learned a lot from Wiki tutorials and have fixed many errors to make my article great. However I've come across a road block that I'm not sure how to pass.

Recently my article was reviewed and denied due to copyrighted material. I need help identifying the copyrighted material so that I can remove and replace it. Is there an efficient way to do this?

Iamserah (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Iamserah. Your draft article has already been deleted, so it isn't possible for me to review it. In general terms, though, you need to write a Wikipedia article in your own words, summarizing what the reliable sources you cite actually say about the topic. You can't copy and paste blocks of text, and you also can't paraphrase closely by changing various words to synonyms, trimming a bit here and there, and swapping clauses around.
You are allowed to quote your sources briefly, as long as the quote is enclosed in quotation marks or another accepted way of setting off a quotation, but any such quotation must be followed immediately by an inline reference to the source of the quotation. I hope this helps. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

How to correct Sandbox error

I have drafted my first article in my sandbox and clicked on the Green Submit your draft for review box. I was expecting that I would then be able to change the title from User:Name sandbox to Albert Hall (Engineer).That didn’t happen so did I make a mistake, as I missed the Article creation Wizard. My sandbox has the yellow review waiting box. What do I do next?CV9933 (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome! I moved your sandbox to Draft: Albert Hall. Although there is a redirect occupying 'Albert Hall' already, there is no need for disambiguation. Arfæst! 21:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I would humbly disagree with your statement that there is no need for disambiguation. Albert Hall (disambiguation) gives a list of pages, and Royal Albert Hall has quite correctly been regarded as the primary topic. I think the OP had it almost right and the article name should be Albert Hall (engineer) (note that this is with a lower case e for engineer), but this is something that the reviewer of the draft will presumably look at. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Many ThanksCV9933 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Good for you in creating an article! I would like to suggest that you always back things up off-line, too, just in case you hit the wrong button again.
  Bfpage |leave a message  02:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reading, I am unable to change the title to Albert Hall (engineer) so I assume that can only be done by editors with privilege to do that. Another small point; now that my sandbox is called Draft:Albert Hall does that mean I can’t use the page as a sandbox because I will corrupt the draft article? CV9933 (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
CV9933 you only need to be autoconfirmed to move a page, and you have in fact been a member more than four days and have more than ten edits. There is no problem with the name while the article is in draft space, but when you do move the article be sure to change the title to the correct one and, of course, select the option that does not have "Draft" before it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah I think I understand better now because the History tab tells me Kvng moved the page with the disambiguation included. So when do I remove Draft before the title? Would I only do that if the submission is accepted, or before it is reviewed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CV9933 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry in case it wasn't clear, I meant the "Draft" prefix.CV9933 (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Masons

I'm sorry. My last question should of said the letters in the sign are A F A M. 208.81.195.166 (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I guess you are talking about this question of yours. You should understand that the Teahouse is a place to ask question about editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia policies, not to ask general questions. We have another forum named Wikipedia:Reference desk that is made for answering such questions. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

How to reply to the good people of wiki in my talk page

Hello, I received a lot of messages of help for my draft, how do I answer them? Thanks so much good people of Wiki Editors for your offers of help.

Halcyon0612 (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to reply to any of the comments on your user talk page, just click the "Edit" link alongside the heading of the relevant section. You can then add your reply below the comment to which you are replying. To get the right indentation so that we can see who is replying to what, start your reply with a colon (:), or with one more colon than what you are replying to if that starts with one or more colons. Finish your reply either with 4 tildes (~~~~) or by using the signature button on the edit toolbar. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much David Biddulph. I am new in Wikipedia and I am very grateful to you for taking the time to help me. Someone is campaigning to delete my article already...

Halcyon0612 (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)halcyon0612

@Halcyon0612: If you reply to other users on your talk page, it is good practice to inform them about the reply on their talk page by using the talkback template. Just place {{talkback}} on their talk page to let them know you replied to them on your talk page. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Is Twitter a reliable source?

I recently added a source to a rejected AfC submission I created myself which linked to a tweet. Is that considered a reliable source? --ToonLucas22 (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello ToonLucas22....in gerneral no ...however... See Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Twitter for m ore info. -- Moxy (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Article is ready to review for publication

Chamith, I think you reviewed my last article and now I have a new one ready for review and publication. I hope this one is better than the last one was. Can you give it a look? Thanks, SusanCummins (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)SusanCumminsSusanCummins (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@SusanCummins, ChamithN: Hi Susan. Not that there's anything wrong with asking for people to take a look at your draft here, but your post is directed at one specific user, who does come here so he might see it, but it's far from the most tailored way to ask him specifically. There are a few options but, most directly, a post at his user talk page (User talk:ChamithN) is about as direct as possible. When you post to someone's talk page they receive the prominent orange notification bar just like you've seen when other users have posted to your talk page. And, if you want to post to a general forum like this but also get the attention of one person in particular, if you link their user page (and don't forget to sign your post) they will get a notification they were mentioned. For example, If I were to type anywhere [[User:SusanCummins]], sign my post and save, you would get a notification (unless you deliberately turned off the feature in your preferences). There are some templates also that can provide the same functionality, such as {{U}}, {{ping}}, {{reply to}} and {{tiny ping}}. I have used one of these at the beginning of this post to provide a notification to both you and ChamithN.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Fuhghettaboutit for pinging me. And hello, SusanCummins welcome to the Teahouse. I assume you are talking about the draft in your sandbox. I don't see any significant errors in your draft. I think the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria as he has received many significant awards. Speaking of the article you have provided references for most cases but still there are some unreferenced content. And I must say it'd be great if you can provide more secondary sources such as web pages (if available). Also you can add an infobox (optional) to improve it further. I'm going to take another look at it and if I find any errors I'll fix them for you. Cheers!-Chamith (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

List of public transport routes in Adelaide

Can someone from the WikiProject Australia please rate this page, as I believe, as a main editor of this page, that it is now accurate and ready for rating. If this is the wrong place to ask this, can someone please point me in the right direction as to where to ask this.

Thanks,

Ryan 868 (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Img Wikia Nocookie Net

Hi guys, I want to know how to go to the url on top, which shows higher res non-free images. I am going there as I need to save a non-free pic before it gets deleted for orphaned fair use, and some admin resized it till it is so small you could not see anything (it is a website screenshot) so please reply quick. If you replied, ping. Any replies will be highly appreciated. Cheers, Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Nahnah4. I barely understand what you are asking, or what you are asking about. But I think (despite the mention of Wikia in the title) that you are asking about how to keep a non-free image in Wikipedia when it is not used in an article. If that is the case, the answer is that you can't. One of the conditions of uploading a non-free image is that it is used in precisely one article (in main space). --ColinFine (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
It's also part of the non-free content criteria that non-free images are kept small and low-res so that the commercial possibilities for the copyright holder aren't damaged, so you won't find high-res, non-free images on Wikipedia (or if you do they should be tagged for reduction using {{Non-free reduce}}). Nthep (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the question is about how to save an offline copy of an image before the online version is deleted. But "Img Wikia Nocookie Net" is not a url and although I did some investigation I still have no idea which image Nahnah4 wants. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
http://img.wikia.nocookie.net is indeed a valid URL. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC).
I thought of that before posting and investigated it but didn't find any image or page with content. site:http://img.wikia.nocookie.net/ shows Google has not indexed anything there. They have for similar searches like site:http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/ but I still don't know what the poster is after. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@ColinFine, Nthep, PrimeHunter, and Rich Farmbrough: No, I meant that the aforementioned website can be used to zoom-in on current images uploaded on the Wiki, and see this page for more details. This is just a mere question, it is not important, but I am just asking for any answers. And I know that I can't keep a non-free image and everything, as I am an avid non-free content uploader (see my file lists). I know that it is an invalid website, and that is why I'm asking this. Ping if replied. Thanks, Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood something. Wikia and Wikipedia are independent sites. Each has their own uploads. There may occasionally be an image which is uploaded to both Wikipedia and Wikia with different resolutions but this is not in any way automatic or systematic. The "File History" link at http://taylorswift.wikia.com/wiki/File:Taylor-Swift-Should-ve-Said-No-taylor-swift-23402993-874-874.jpg shows it was uploaded to Wikia in 2011 by a Wikia user called Spazzedoutfangirl1. Wikipedia has no User:Spazzedoutfangirl1. Wikia image files are apparently stored at wikia.nocookie.net. Wikipedia images are stored at upload.wikimedia.org. If you click on an image from its file page then you get the full resolution version at that wiki. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

How to request Wikipedians to write a article

I want to write a article for Akhil Rabindra who is F3 driver and BMW driver. Please find his name in the below Wiki Link aslo 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_JK_Racing_Asia_Series_season

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Formula_Masters_China_season05:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rajkumar100989. I see you've found the request page, so that's in hand. If you want to have a go yourself,here you go. Don't forget to sign your posts with 4 tildes (it's beyond me why WP doesn't automatically do this :) ). Bromley86 (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Want to know Akhil Rabindra is eligible for the Wikipedia listing

My self Rajkumar, Am preparing to write a first article for a personality, (F3 Driver, An sport person, India). I have more 40 article as reference. Two wikipedia aricle has his name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_JK_Racing_Asia_Series_season https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Formula_Masters_China_season

Please take a look and let me know should i write a article or not.

ThanksRajkumar100989 (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

He's definitely notable,[2][3] so I'd say go for it. Bromley86 (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

How to discuss about a page in Talk Page?

Hello i am aGastya. And i want to know how to discuss about any pages' topic on its talk page. aGastya 11:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse aGastya here is an article that explains wikipedia:talk pages Here are some of the things I think are most important to understand: Wikipedia pretty much uses the same editors, wp:wikicode, etc. for talk pages as for articles. So editing a talk page is almost exactly like editing an article with the difference of course being that the goal is quite distinct. Talk pages are discussions and debates about the articles One of the most important conventions to understand is the ":". You can put colons in the middle of a sentence just as with any editor but when you start a new paragraph after a line feed with a colon that paragraph is indented one level. So if you look at the wikicode for this comment it starts with one ":"... and
this paragraph started with two colons. So when you reply to an existing section in a talk page the convention is you add one more colon for one more level of indentation. Also, remember wp:civility is a lot more important here than on most of the Internet. On Youtube its normal for people to call each other names and make sarcastic comments. That won't fly here and anyone that does that isn't taken very seriously and may get banned eventually. Also, remember talk pages are strictly for questions about editing the article not for general discussions about the topic. Finally, remember to always sign your comments. You can use the little pencil icon in the editor to do that (that is what I recommend and I always do) or you can just manually type five tildas. Those tildas get automatically converted to your signature via the magic of wikicode. Try it here, see the "Edit" link at the top of this (and every) section (after the title and "Join the discussion")? Click on that and try replying to my comment here and that will give you the exact same experience you would have adding to a talk page. Start under my comment here, type three colons for three levels of indentation and then type whatever you want. Hope that helps. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@AGastya: Here is one more article that might help you: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit Explanation Box

Good morning. I am new to wikipedia and have been trying to read through the guidelines. I am stuck: I tried to include an explanation in the edit summary box at the bottom of the page. After I saved the page, I noticed I made a typographical error in the explanation. I did not see how to correct, so I undid my revision, then returned to the page to redo and re-submit my explanation. I do not think this is the correct method and do not want to inundate the history with these. Is there a way to edit the summary explanations or is there another location to inform of the typographical error? - Thegreatcatherine (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Sincerely, thegreatcatherine Thegreatcatherine (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thegreatcatherine (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Thegreatcatherine, welcome to the Teahouse. Edit summaries cannot be edited after the edit is saved. There is rarely something serious enough to need a correction to clutter up the page history but when it happens, a dummy edit is the proper procedure. See Help:Dummy edit. In your case [4] I would just have ignored the typo. "BLP" was already in the previous edit summary. By the way, to help users who don't know our numerous abbreviations, you can make wikilinks in edit summaries like [[WP:BLP]] to produce WP:BLP. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

A page if tag with promotional content

A page if tag with promotional content is always deleted or admins try to improve it first before considering it for deletion.

On what grounds a page is supposed to be promoting? Vrnthmsn (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Vrnthmsn. Our purpose here is making Wikipedia as good as we can, within its agreed policies. Tags are usually placed by an editor who sees a problem with the article, and makes a decision whether to try and improve the article, to mark it with a tag, or (if they don't think the article can be saved) to propose deletion using an appropriate one of the three different procedures we have for deleting articles. (There are different procedures so that an uncontroversial deletion can be carried out quickly, whereas one that might be contested allows opportunity for people to make arguments for and against). Admins are involved only when a deletion is eventually required - everything else, any editor can do.
So, in the case of promotional material, if an editor thinks that an article is unredeemably promotional, (and usually that the subject is not notable anyway), they would normally nominate it for deletion. If an editor tags the article as promotional, it suggests that they probably think that the article could be saved by rewriting it (though it might mean just that they have noticed it is promotional and not though about whether it can be saved). Ideally, another editor will come along and rewrite it; but another editor may see it and decide that they think that the article cannot be saved, and nominate it for deletion. Wikipedia has policies and procedures (and some bots), but most things are done by editors who think that some action will improve the encyclopaedia.
The grounds are usually the language and content of the article: if an article about a product, company, club, performer, artist, sportsperson, charity or anything else uses the kind of evaluative or promotional language which you would expect to find on their own website or in an advertising article in a magazine, it is promotional. Obvious examples are words like "iconic", "ground-breaking", "famous", or "innovative": words like these should never appear in a Wikipedia article unless they are directly quoted from an independent reliable published source that has said this about the subject. (See WP:PEACOCK). A more subtle example is "solutions": this word is used in marketing today for anything from computer installations to meals, but in the context of an encyclopaedia it is IMHO never appropriate except when talking about materials dissolved in a solvent, or about somebody having solved a specific problem or class of problems. For another kind of promotion, an article about a company which exhaustively lists every one of its products is generally too promtional, as this detail does not help the reader get an encyclopaedic understanding of the company, but just seems intended to advertise their products. See WP:PROMOTION and {{Puffery}}. --ColinFine (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

How to remove/merge a redundant page?

I've found two seperate pages which discuss the same topic. (They are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inosine-5%E2%80%B2-monophosphate_dehydrogenase and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IMP_dehydrogenase). The title of the second article (IMP dehydrogenase) is merely an abbreviation of the first (Inosine-5′-monophosphate dehydrogenase), therefore the articles are redundant. I was wondering whether there is some way to flag this issue and merge the two pages? DR G2015 (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DR G2015. There is an easy trick when trying to find a policy or procedure on Wikipedia. Type "WP:" in the search box, without the quotes, followed by a key word. In this particular case, you can find the instructions for merging two articles at WP:MERGE. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

tweaks to Sonoma orogeny

I wrote an article on the Sonoma orogeny. It was revised and I appreciate that. Now I would like to make some minor changes to correct a couple of errors and clarify a couple of statements. How do I offer these changes for comments before actually making the changes? Ahlitanah (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ahlitanah. Unless you think the changes are likely to be contentious, I would suggest you just be bold and edit the article (but make sure you give a useful edit summary when you commit). If you think you do need to discuss them first, the article's talk page is the place to do this. --ColinFine (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Trying to diffuse a category

I am trying to subcategorize the pages in "Category:Hindi-language films" since it has over 5,000 pages and a "Very Large" tag on it. I created some subcategories to sort them by decade, but whenever I remove the parent category and add the new category, the parent category still shows up. I am assuming this is because of the Infobox Film template. While I'm able to add the new category, this does nothing to diffuse the old one. I'm wondering if there is some way to fix this, or if I should just forget about trying to diffuse the category.Nocowardsoulismine (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Nocowardsoulismine. I suspect you're right about it being the template, because {{Infobox film}} says, under 'language': "(and the film article will also be put automatically in the category concerned)". If you think this is a significant problem, it would require a change to the template (eg. an additional parameter to the template to mean something like "This is a big category, subcategorise by ... "). Since template editing is a specialised skill, I suggest you float this idea on Template talk:Infobox film. --ColinFine (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Radium and radon in the environment cleanup

One has been on WP for some years now, but never really done much, mainly created stubs of pointless stuff. Now I decided to try something else and checked the Category:Articles needing cleanup from December 2007, third oldest of the backlog. Now, I found this article Radium and radon in the environment and, as you see, it has had the cleanup...is it template..from late 2007. I think it is time to do something. But, I see little obviously wrong and I changed the opening section, which was obviously wrong. So, if I want to remove the cleanup, by cleaning up the article, what exactly should I do?

As you see, there has never been any reason given to the need to cleanup, nor is there much to be found on the talk page, except something about a bogus quote.

Yours truly, Voltteri (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Voltteri. I see two major problems: Many of the assertions are uncited, and many of the references are not formatted properly. At least one journal reference lacks a title, and several of them are just listed at the end, instead of being formatted as inline references. There are some stylistic problems as well, which are much easier to fix. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Using court records in BLPs

Looking for a little help on interpreting a policy. Is this the right place for that, or should I be asking somewhere else?

I'd previously believed that we weren't meant to use court docs in BLPs, as they are primary documents. However, I've just been reading WP:BLPPRIMARY and it seems that might not be the case. It all depends what "assertion" means in this:

Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.

Thinking about it, it seems that assertion implies something stronger than statement. So if I have a court document that supports, for example, a maiden name, then that'd presumably be acceptable. Would that situation change if there was a negative spin on the information? For example, I have a source that confirms that a fraudster that we have a section on used a certain alias (David Wellington) (technically, BLP doesn't apply as he's been dead a while, but ignore that for the moment). Would the answer change if the entry on this chap had a secondary source confirming that he used aliases, but which didn't mention this particular one?

What about other statements, like using the document to support a (negative) statement that he had previous convictions for fraud (which it does state)?

Anyway, sorry if it's the wrong place to ask - didn't seem right for WP:RSN, as it's a general question about interpreting policy. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bromley86. In my opinion, the cases where we would use court documents as a reference in a biography of a living person are very rare. In the case of a woman's maiden name, if secondary reliable sources do not discuss this information and she is known exclusively by her maiden name, then why do we need to track down and add that information? When using court documents in this way, the risk of confusing two people with the same name is high. It is similar to the issue of date of birth, home address and other personally identifying information. If widely reported in reliable sources, we can include this information, but if not, Wikipedia editors should not engage in original research to track such information down. Considerations of privacy are very strong in such cases.
Please take a look at Don't build the Frankenstein for an essay that touches on such matters, and Talk:Frederick Meyer for a specific historical example showing how even usually reliable sources can mix up two people with the same name. Caution is always in order. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen328, I'll have a read of those. Bromley86 (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

how to add my article to list of physician articles?

I wrote a biography article on an American physician who lived from 1855-1951. How may I get this article included in the physician article list? AgedCare14 (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AgedCare14. I assume that you are talking about Alfred Worcester. Simply edit List of physicians, adding Worcester's name in the appropriate place. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

How to add a new page in translation

I want to translate the "Thiruvidanthi" page into Telugu language. it is currently available in English and Tamil languages only. Please tell me how to add the new page? Hydkarthik (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hydkarthik. You should ask that question at the Telugu Wikipedia, which is self-governing. Here at the Teahouse, we answer questions about the English Wikipedia. In general, any Wikipedia is happy to accept an accurate translation of an article from another language Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it
Hello, Hydkarthik. Cullen328 is right, but our page wp:translate us gives some useful advice. --ColinFine (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

de-orphaning

I inserted many links in my article to other articles but I don't feel it is my place to go to those articles and create links to mine, especially as mine may be only tangential to theirs. AgedCare14 (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello AgedCare14. Orphaned articles are those without incoming links from other articles, so the wikilinks you added to Alfred Worcester have nothing to do with orphan status. However, this is directly related to one of your other questions above. If you add Worcester to List of physicians, then the Worcester article will no longer be an orphan. See WP:ORPHAN for more information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, AgedCare14. While you certainly shouldn't add a link to the new article (not "your" article, by the way, just one that you created) where it doesn't fit, if there are articles which will be improved by a link to it, feel free to add the link. --ColinFine (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Mistake - How to edit?

Hi there, I have found I think a small mistake in an article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Longest_tennis_match_records&article_action=signup-edit#Mixed_doubles_2

At the end of the wimbledon section under mixed doubles it should read as the final header Longest match by number of games, AFTER the tiebreaker introduction.

I can't work out how to edit this to be correct though, could someone help?

Thanks

Hello, Bennywils, and welcome to the Teahouse. I guess you're using Wikipedia on a mobile, because you've included a URL to the mobile version, which confused me when I opened it on my computer, as it didn't look like Wikipedia. That's one reason (which hadn't occurred to me before) why it's better to use wikilinks than URLs. If you put the page name in double square brackets, [[Longest tennis match records]] displays like Longest tennis match records, and can be opened in whichever version.
On to your question: I can't see what you want to change: both matches listed under Wimbledon/Mixed doubles are before 1971, so it seems to me that they are indeed both be before the tiebreaker. But I understand why you had trouble editing it. Those tables are generated by templates: whenever you see {{ ... }} in the edit screen you know you've got a template, and you need to look at the documentation of that template to find out what parameters it requires. In this case, if you go to Template:5-set tennis, you can see that the header text is generated by a code: 'gamesno' for "Longest match by number of games, before the tiebreaker introduction"; 'gamestb' for "Longest match by number of games, using tiebreaker scoring". So to make the change you suggest, you would change 'gamesno' to 'gamestb'. But, as I say, I can't see why that edit should be made.
Having looked at that page, I think much of the detail on it should be removed anyway, as it is original research: no article should ever describe something as the longest (or biggest, or oldest etc) unless it references a source which say that it is the longest etc.
One last point: when you post on talk and discussion pages (not on articles, please "sign" your contribution with four tildes (~~~~): I had to go looking to see who to answer. --ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Can I upload Images from Documentaries?

Hello. I am new to editing wikipedia and I love contributing. My query is that I have a huge collection of documentaries on varied avenues pertaining to Science & Technology. The source of my documentaries are channels like BBC, PBS, Channel4, ITV etc. I was thinking I could add some valuable stuff from my collection to wikipedia. I would gladly cite my source & give due credit. I was wondering if its OK to upload images and/or short videos?

Anand2202 (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Anand2202, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the answer is, usually not. There are two possible exceptions:
  1. If the video explicitly says that it has been released under a suitable licence such as CC-BY-SA, then you may upload stills or even the whole video, with proper attribution, to Wikimedia commons, and use them in Wikipedia articles. But I think it's unlikely that videos from any of the sources you mention have been so licensed. Most of them will say "All rights reserved"; but if they say nothing at all about it, you should assume that they have not been licensed.
  2. Very occasionally, it will be appropriate to use a still under a "fair use" justification. You should only do so if the way you treat it and use it meets all of the requirements in non-free content criteria. This is often used for album covers and company logos: I can imagine that it could be appropriate for a still from a video, but it'll be pretty rare that the conditions are met. --ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@ColinFine: Thank You for your valuable inputs. I would like to further elaborate my query. For instance, I have a documentary by Sir David Attenborough on Barnacle Geese. When I checked it out on wikipedia, to my amusement, I found that the article on the page requires citation for Ecology, behavior and life history. Now, can I cite the reference to the documentary? Can I get some screenshots which depicts the natural habitat (cliff) in which goslings hatch and upload it to wikimedia? Anand2202 (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@Anand2202: I just want to add to the good info that Colin gave you. If you want to cite the documentary, e.g., if in the documentary some scientist says "Barnacle geese like to eat barnacles" or something like that you definitely can do that. There is a citation template for citing videos and film: Template:Cite_AV_media Note that you don't have to include a URL to the film if you do this. You CAN include the URL if the film is in the public domain and posted legally on some site. But as to taking a screen shot from the film that is a different and more complex issue. Copyright is one of the most complex issues here IMO. My guess is that if it's a David Attenborough documentary somewhere in the credits it says something like "A foo bar production. All rights reserved" and you can't take random screen shots. But I could be wrong, some documentaries are licensed similar to open source because people want the maximum distribution. But my default assumption on copyright is if I'm not sure its freely available assume it is not. Here is an intro article that might be of benefit: Wikipedia:Copyrights --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
No, you won't be able to do that. However, you can cite a documentary using Template:Cite_AV_media. I've used this myself for TV interviews, so there's no reason why you can't use it for the documentary. The key thing is to include an |time= field, which displays "Event occurs at" in the reference section - failure to do this will likely lead to it's removal, as citing a 90 minute doc without an in-source location is effectively unverifiable. I personally don't go overboard on the other fields; title, date & publisher should do it. Although a URL is technically not necessary, and although people shouldn't technically remove the cite just because it's missing a URL, I personally wouldn't cite av media without a working URL.
I'm uncertain as to whether the documentary explicitly needs to say, rather than just show, the point. So if they say "goslings are hatched on cliffs" then that's 100% good, if they just show pictures of hatchlings on cliffs win the background, that's problematic. Bromley86 (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Anand2202. To add to the good advice from MadScientistX11 and Bromley86: The documentary does not have to be in the public domain for you to link to it: it just needs to be posted legally. So If the BBC or the documentary makers have posted the video, even on YouTube, then you can link to it; but if Joe Public has posted it on YouTube, that is (probably) a copyright infringement, and you may not link to it. As to Bromley's question about how explicit the documentary needs to be: I would say that if Attenborough says something on the documentary, you can use that, but if it is merely shown without comment, then that is a primary source, so you could say "Documentary xxx shows yyy", but a statement that yyy happens in general would be original research. --ColinFine (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Fox News as a Reliiable Source?

I've come across a couple of articles (been doing some AFD work lately) that have Fox News or a related site like The Daily Caller as sources. I looked on the reliable sources page and to my surprise (perhaps I just didn't search properly) couldn't find anything that just said Fox is not usually considered a reliable source. It seems to me that Fox should be in the same category (although for different reasons) as IMDB, something that can be used perhaps in unusual circumstances but in general is not considered a reliable source due to an obvious political bias and clear examples of publishing false information. Not trying to get political here, I am I admit mostly on the left but also don't go along with lots of left ideas either. Actually my political view is probably curmudgeon, I don't agree with anyone ;-) but was wondering is there a general policy that Fox News is not reliable or is it done on a case by case basis? MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, MadScientistX11. We do not have a blanket restriction against Fox News which has a conservative slant any more than we have a restriction on MSNBC which has a liberal bent. Both networks publish straight news stories and both also include massive amounts of commentary and opinion. So any given article has to be evaluated. If it is an opinion piece, it is reliable only for the opinions of the person writing or speaking. The same is true of traditional newspapers. In most cases, a news story in the New York Times is an excellent source. But opinion columns in that or any other newspaper should never be used as a reference for factual assertions. It takes skill and experience to distinguish between news and opinion sometimes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Cullen328 I'm sorry but I disagree vehemently with the comparison of MSNBC and Fox. There is a difference between having a political orientation (which essentially ANY news source has) and having a verifiable track record of printing lies and not printing retractions. I could give you hundreds of examples where Fox does the latter in a way that MSNBC or other sources do not. But I realize this isn't the place for that discussion and you answered my question so thanks for that. Cheers. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I, too, have my personal problems with Fox News and did not say that Fox and MSNBC were identical in their error rates. When searching for reliable sources for factual assertions, it is preferable to seek out those with the very best reputations. Since, in my personal experience, good newspapers regularly print corrections and retractions while TV news sources do so far less often, I prefer to cite newspapers more often. And even better are well-reviewed books by academic experts. You are entitled to be skeptical of references to Fox News, but each must be evaluated individually. There is no need for vehemence here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Fox News is a "reliable source" per many WP:RS/N discussions and per the meaning of "reliable source" given at WP:RS. Many "reliable sources", particularly in the area of "celebrity gossip" should be treated with caution, as that area is rife with problems no matter the source (including The New York Times, The Guardian and The Times.) Some dislike Fox News on the basis that it also carries commentary (which is generally not given as "news").

The solution is simple on Wikipedia - when dealing with opinions, they always should be cited and presented as opinions. We ought not disallow opinions we dislike, so that as an argument against any source is problematic.

In the area of biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) "contentious claims" require strong sourcing - a person saying "I think XXX is a murderer" falls into that category, so we tend to disapprove of such opinions being repeated about living persons. WP:BLPCAT makes clear that certain statements about living persons are problematic unless the person self-identifies with that group. One of the classic discussions always appears when editors seek to label a person as "Jewish" where the person does not so self-identify, or as "Gay" where the person does not so self-identify, among other types of categorization. In almost all such cases, the consensus has been to disallow such a categorization not made by the person directly. I trust this covers the basic question asked. Collect (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Automation and pilot training

I have been unable to find a section in Aviation about pilot training and automation. I was a commercial airline pilot for 35 years (retired in 2001). When the new automated planes came on line we were trained to fly using as much automation as possible. I thought this to be the wrong approach because it deteriorated a pilots ability and thought process. We now see many accidents that are attributed to a pilots inability to recover from unusual attitudes. If there is no such discussion on Wikipedia I would like to start one. How? An old lie is always more popular than a new truth! (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ve744 , and welcome to the teahouse.
I think you may be misunderstanding what Wikipedia is about - we are not a chat-room. Our articles should only be based on facts already published in reliable, independent sources - we do not publish original research or synthesis derived from those sources. - Arjayay (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps that's not the intent of "discussion" here. Far as I see the topic is mentioned only in Glass cockpit near the end. If the discussion there is adequate, surely the ease of finding it from the flight training article, and others, is not. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:Ve744 I think your ideas could be discussed more productively at the talk page of WP:WikiProject Aviation. --Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirect Problem

(Redirected from User:Atmospheric theatre/sandbox) appears. I want to delete the page from the sandbox, but am concerned that if I do, I will lose the page in Wiki. Not sure what to do. Thanks. Atmospheric theatre (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Atmospheric theatre, welcome to the Teahouse. A page move leaves a redirect behind. Click the link in "Redirected from User:Atmospheric theatre/sandbox". There you can edit the sandbox and remove the redirect code. See also Wikipedia:Redirect#How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

clearing sandbox for a new start

I am doing an article on Edward Mahon and my initial attempts have jammed up my sandbox. How do I clear the messed-up elements of the pasted-in template (from the simple guide) in order to start again? Why is there not some clear and easy way to do this, as beginners are bound to mess up, especially with your Be Bold! encouragement to try things out? I am pretty confident I could put the article together now if it were not for this impediment. And one more dumb thing: why show the end code in brackets; it took me half an hour to decide to remove them before I could activate the Ask my question button.Otmarpub (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Otmarpub. Sorry about this. The problem was that the lines started with spaces, which made the software format it differently. I've fixed it now.
I assume you are following the simple guide at Wikipedia:Simple guide to creating your first article; step 2 says to to remove any spaces, and you can see why.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the code in brackets"; could you clarify where this is? Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 17:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I will try again later today. What I meant is the end code (4 cedillas). I typed them in with the brackets and so the send button was inactive until I thought the brackets should be removed. Maybe it should say without brackets for beginners like me.Otmarpub (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Still having trouble using the simple guide template. After finishing with the intro section I get to where I need to click on the red link to paste in my main body of text. All I get is a message my work was deleted for 3 reasons that make no sense. Don't know what to do. If I can get the main text pasted in I am confident I can finish the article to an acceptable standard.Otmarpub (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Otmarpub, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is complicated to use, and there's a lot to learn: that's why I generally recommend that people get experience editing existing articles before trying the difficult process of creating a new one. What's going on here, is that that red link "Your topic" isn't what you want, and I'm not sure why you added it to the article. What that is is a Wikilink to a separate non-existent Wikipedia article called "your topic"! When you pick on it, the software goes away from your sandbox and tries to create an article called "Your topic". Evidently other people have had the same problem, and have created it in the past, and it has then been deleted - that's what the strange messages are about. (I'm guessing that you've seen something saying that this is one way to create a new article: that is true, and you could put [[Edward Mahon]] on your user page, for example, and then use that link to create the page; but this approach would create the page directly in article space where it would be immediately subject to critical review. Creating a draft in your sandbox or Draft: space is a much better idea, but your sandbox is there waiting for you, you don't have to create it).
What you need to do is remove the [[Your topic]] from your draft article, and just paste your text in to the edit window. On another topic, I observe that you say that the information you are putting in the article is based on a book which you appear to have published. Please be aware that self-published sources are not generally regarded as reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. You need to find independent reliable sources that talk about Mahon at length in order to establish that he is notable (in Wikipedia's special sense). --ColinFine (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there and thanks for explaining that.I am glad to see others have fallen into the same trap. All I am doing is following the instructions (Simple guide to creating your first article) and working off the template that I pasted into my sandbox. The problem arises on step 4 : click on the red link, paste the content in,add an edit summary. When I click on the red link I get the deletion messages and can go no further. I presume they are talking about the red link that I see in the saved version rather than the working (editing) text (where there is no red link). Maybe I should try to just paste in the main text into the working template without looking for the red link. As far as my self-published book is concerned, that is the only source in the world right now and its validity is backed up by other references and museum exhibits that were based on my work. It will further be justified by links to existing Wikipedia articles. So it is important to be included as it will create a platform for establishing other new linkages on important personalities like John FitzGerald Mahon, who is mentioned but lacks an article. Denis, on whom Wikipedia does have an article, was his only son. As I have had exclusive access to family records I can offer that and no one else can. Hopefully I can at least get the article presented for evaluation if I can get past the red link hangup. I have considerable practice in editing by now so formatting and citing should not be a problem.Otmarpub (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Otmarpub. I didn't know about that page (WP:Simple guide to creating your first article), and having looked at it, I think it is a terrible, terrible, terrible page, and have opened a discussion on its talk page about removing it. I strongly advise using the WP:article wizard instead, which will help you create and work on the article in Draft space: if you put it in article space (as you now have) it becomes instantly subject to review and possible deletion.
On the subject of your sources, I'm sorry, but if "that is the only source in the world right now", then I'm afraid in my view Mahon fails Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Neither unpublished sources nor Wikipedia articles contribute in any way at all to establishing notability - and nor, I'm afraid, do most self-published sources. Until there is evidence that several different reliable publications have thought the subject of enough interest to publish substantial writing about it, then Wikipedia is not interested in it. "Creating a platform" is not part of the purposes of Wikipedia, either. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Colin. Thanks for agreeing with me on the traps set for the unwary in the simple-guide. I did finally figure it out and my work todate is split between my sandbox (with the first part of the text that would go at the very top) and the main body of the article which presents when clicking on the red link). So it is all there although somewhat jumbled. I am still working on the main text (adding to it and adding additional citations) so do not judge it yet. However,I must say that the information I am trying to publish for Wikipedia is backed up admirably (I think) by several independent sources (both print and web-based) which will remove all doubt that the subject matter is proper for inclusion. I suppose I could strip away all references to Edward Mahon that are only found in my self-published work and produce a stub article with minimal information, but in that case Wikipedia will be the loser as no one else has had access to the exclusive family records of Edward's descendants, and that includes images that I was hoping to post. I should say that in this age of book decline a publishing house is no guarantee of correctness (I find errors in much of what I read) nor is it possible to find a publishing house willing to risk a work that is scholarly enough to lose its appeal to the newer audience with shorter attention spans and greater expectations of entertainment value and sensationalism. My book has received good reviews in noted history journals and has been purchased by many libraries in Canada. I will work on my draft further in the hope the editors will judge the final product as worthy of publishing.Otmarpub (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Otmarpub. I'm glad you've worked round it. Now that you're working in the main article Edward Mahon, please put everything in it and abandon your sandbox: there is no value in keeping the material separate. If there are other published sources (which do not need to be on line), that is splendid, and will establish notability. Please have a look, though at articles with a single source; and WP:SELFCITE. --ColinFine (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Colin. I discovered the article is up and running. Then I spent much of the morning editing it (with additional insertions and new inline citations for a total of 8),only to lose it all as I did not know how to merge the changes. I suppose it will get shot down for insufficient support (even though the citations up now make it obvious we are dealing with an important topic and I am an authority on it). So it will probably get deleted and then I can start writing it up carefully before it goes live. Maybe then I can start again. I don't suppose there is a way for me to work on its replacement (under the same title) while the defective one is running. It was that red link that kicked it to live status before it was ready to go. Yes, that simple method should be discarded as it is full of pitfalls.Otmarpub (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Otmarpub. I don't think it's going to get deleted now, and if it is it will be by the articles for deletion mechanism, which opens a discussion in which people can advance arguments both ways for a week. I think on the face of it there are enough references to establish notability. The article still needs some work, though: statements like "is remembered as a visionary developer" are not acceptable unless they are pretty well quoting a source. See WP:PEACOCK. --ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks, Colin for staying with me on this. I think reference 8, listed just before the visionary phrase comes up should cover that concern. After all it is part of the title for the Mahon story in an accredited history journal.I suppose I could move that citation down a line and hang it on the visionary phrase, but is it really necessary if the two are so close together?Otmarpub (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Article declined for reading like an essay and not an encyclopedia entry...suggestions to fix?

Hi, I just got a decline notice for this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Manuel_Zapata_Olivella_(1920-2004)...saying that it read more like an essay than an encyclopedia entry. I am confused....I was trying to create a page in English for a noted Colombian novelist...and I cited a lot of sources. Any help is much appreciated. Thanks! Gzimmerman (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gzimmerman. The draft in question is located at Draft:Manuel Zapata Olivella (1920-2004). Start by reading about the neutral point of view. Phrases like these jump out at me:
  • "legendary"
  • "thanks to a richly diverse family background"
  • "deeply committed"
  • "developed an anthropological eye"
  • "fruitful dialogue"
  • "their rightful place"
  • "unique window"
None of these things should be said in Wikipedia's voice, which should be studiously neutral. Instead you can say "Professor X said he had an 'anthropological eye' (reference) and literary critic Y called his family background 'richly diverse' (reference)". If these phrases are your own creations, then they must be accurate paraphrases, summarizing what others said about the novelist, and must be referenced. I hope that this is helpful to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cullen,
So I made a lot of your suggested edits and added links to sources and citations. Do you think it is ready to re-submit?

Gzimmerman (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that your draft is much improved, Gzimmerman, so please resubmit it. I suggest you continue to improve the article while waiting for another review. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

articles & stubs

wondering why some articles with bogus & untrue claims & extremely poorly written articles are accepted. why the notability decisions are so biased Saladbowldon (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Saladbowldon, it's likely that if the article actually doesn't meet the requirements to be here, then it is simply the case that no one has noticed the article/stub yet and requested its deletion. It may also be possible in the case of stubs that it appears someone is working on expanding the article so other editors are leaving it alone until it can be determined if it is appropriate here.  DiscantX 08:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
You might also want to have a read of WP:COI if you're an agent/friend, or similar, of Fury's. Bromley86 (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_301&oldid=1144154036"