Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 355

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 350 ← Archive 353 Archive 354 Archive 355 Archive 356 Archive 357 → Archive 360

Advertorial Page and clear COI

Hi All, I've come across this article Sulekha about a notable digital classifieds platform in India. I noticed a lot of issues on the page like advertorial content, wrongful placement of references, false & mimicked references along with self-referencing of statements (statements are referenced to their own web pages). I have tried to cleanup the page without having to delete much content or add any references, when I found another problem - the main, active editor on the page - Neha Xavier - when Google'd was found to be a Sulekha employee... Does this reflect a COI from a Wiki stand-point, if yes, and by the way the article is written, is there any action that can be taken against the user and the article itself?

Thanks in advance  yanka  AD  =Talk= 07:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nnayak83: Yes, there's a COI there, being an employee of a company is an obvious (and very common) COI. I've tried to remove some of the promotional spam from the page, what it needs is for the references to be inline, and support some of the claims. I'll send them a COI notice. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

What's the best way to start a page for a list of episodes?

I need to build out a list of episodes page for a podcast that currently has it's own page. Is there a template or easy way to start creating this page, or is it best to just go copy, paste, and edit from another show that already has this developed? Ankirschner (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there substantial independent writing about the indiviual episodes, Ankirschner? If not, I don't see that such an article would meet the criteria for notability. --ColinFine (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
ColinFine, there happens to be quite a bit of independent writing for certain episodes, though not all. Particularly from high-profile episodes from Jon Stewart, David Carr, and Cynthia Nixon. I think everything worked out though, it was flagged for deletion but the notice is gone today after contesting it. Thanks for your help! Ankirschner (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

is Wikipedia bias

I was submitting about one of my favorite artist Qeuyl who i have seen perform countless times but apparently doesnt have any wikipedia page so i figured i would write one can some one please tell me why it was deleted and can you help me fix it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Qeuyl Tinkerbell bqva (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tinkerbell bqva: It hasn't been deleted, it's just not been accepted. The reason is not a Wikipedia bias, instead we require evidence of significant, independent coverage from reliable sources about them and/or a significant music achievement (like charting in a country's charts), per WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. This submission doesn't show either of these, it needs more reliable sources- see WP:Identifying reliable sources for guidance on what are reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Pet peeve and FYI the adjective is "biased"...--ukexpat (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello Tinkerbell bqva, and welcome to the Teahouse. I know this process can be frustrating, and I sympathize. The problem is that while you may have "seen [Qeuyl] perform countless times" that does not mean that he is Notable, in the spcial Wikipedia sense. Wikipedia articles should be based only on what has already been published about a subject in reliable sources. If little or nothing has been so published, then there is nothing to put in an article. You need to find places where independent sources have writtne about Qeuyl. This would include magazine articles, newspaper stories, books, and reliable online review sites. It would not include blogs, fan sites, press releases, or personal sites. It also would not include statements made by Qeuyl himself, nor by anyone publishing or selling his work, as they are not independent. It also would not include mere passing mentions, such as an event listing saying that he performed or will perform at a particular time and place. Rather they must be published sources that discuss Qeuyl in some detail. (See our guideline on notability in music-related articles.) Then thouse sources must be cited in the draft. See Reerencing for Beginners for mofre details on how to do those, or once you have identified the sources, ask for help.
Once the sources are in the draft, you can resubmit for a new review. Nothing has been deleted, the draft has merely not been accepted as an article yet. There is no bias involved, these rules are applied to every article, about every kind of person and subject. I hope this helps. DES (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thank you DESiegel, he has been in over 8 magazines ive been trying to find the online article but i can't seem to find it even though i have it next to me Vibe Magazine and Milford magazine are these not notable sources. Tinkerbell bqva (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
You do not need online sources to support a wikipedia article. If you have the citation information, that is sufficient; the key is that the magazines are recognized by the general editorship here as reliable sources. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi again, Tinkerbell bqva. Sources do not need to be online to be cited. The name of the magazine, the date it was published, the page or pages where the information can be found, and the title of the article is good enough. (Oh, also supply the author of the article if the author is listed.) Anyone who wants to check can use a library or try to find the text online. I don't know those particular magazines, but if they are independently published and have a good reputation for accuracy, they should be acceptable. Note that you will want several sources that discuss Qeuyl if at all possible. Analysis or review articles are preferred over interviews where almost all the content is in the subject's own words, but interviews can also be helpful. DES (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
If it is this Vibe (magazine) the content certainly comes with the presumption of it being from an acceptable source. Of course, even the best sources are sometimes not acceptable-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

My page deleted again

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The Yellow Door, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 203.122.23.114 (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

My page is deleted again....I want to know why? Please help me how do I meet all guidelines. madhumandal121203.122.23.114 (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, madhumandal121. No page on wikipedia is an appropriate location for advertising or promotion. Only notable subjects will have articles (see our guideline on notability of firms. And those articles should be neutral in tone, not designed to promote or advertise the subject. An article such as The Yellow Door is pretty much certian to be promptly deleted. DES (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Text such is "With a comprehensive production capacity and personalized sourcing, it offers a range of exclusive handcrafted products available on its website and retailing through their store. They have a strong logistics and tracking team through which customers can accurately track their orders." is pure marketing-speak. It should never appear in a Wikipedia article. DES (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of page

My page Stronger Community Party seems to not be acceptable and I don't know why. Can you help? sherald01Sherald01 (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

As the nomination for speedy deletion says, it doesn't indicate why Stronger Community Party is notable in the peculiar Wikipedia sense, that is, having been reported on by more than one reliable source. My advice would be to find newspaper or magazine articles on the party and add references to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Sherald01: Just so you know, not every political party is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, it needs to show notability as described above. If they've been featured in newspaper/magazine articles, then they should be added, but I cannot see any from a quick search. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks guys - I've added a reference to a news article now. Sherald0131.52.64.200 (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Trying to create a text box

I would like to create a bio text box for a musical group that I see alot. It has the origin, genre, current members, etc. It's usually on the right side and is accompanied by a picture on top of the box. Thanks.Dr. Lolzfather (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Dr. Lolzfather: Looks like you want a band infobox- you can literally just copy and paste the infobox as it's shown on that page onto the article, and then fill out the relevant bits. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
And it automatically goes to the right hand size of the page. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!Dr. Lolzfather (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Ordering reference list

I cannot figure out how to order my references vertically, they are numbered and separate but just run together like sentences. Thanks.Dr. Lolzfather (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Lolzfather and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has its own reference system that will automatically number the references for you and display them properly. That way, when new material is added, the references don't need to be renumbered by hand. See User:Yunshui/References for beginners for a good explanation on how to do this. Happy editing. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Check date values in: access date= are highlighted in red

All entries in Reflist for Richard Earl Thompson article are highlighted in red. I've read the information regarding acceptable formats but am surprised all would be marked. Is there something in general that I've done wrong? I have also forgotten how to open the Reference list to edit. If someone would please take a look and let me know how to open the list and if I need to edit each entry, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Jet 18:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet1950 (talk • contribs)

@Jet1950: I think the issue is that you were putting pre-Wikipedia (ie. pre-2000) dates into assessdate when you meant to put them in the date parameter, I have fixed it now. For more about referencing you can read WP:REFB and WP:CS. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Trouble with Citations

I'm an intern at a US Air Force museum responsible for creating a brand new Wiki page for the museum. The museum director gave me permission to use the museum's website as a source for the information I put on the page (in addition to any newspaper articles or other credible sources I want to use). We were both under the impression that the website did not have to be cited like other sources because it is a government website; however when I submitted the page for review, it was rejected on the grounds that the website was copyrighted. My question is, is there anything I need to do to get permission from the person who "owns" the website for it to be a legitimate source and citation, and how do I go about formatting the citation.Abthomps (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Abthomps:. While you don't need any permission to cite a source where you put their ideas into your own words, you would need permission if you are taking copyrighted materials, such as extended chunks of text, word for word or with only slight paraphrasing. In addition, if the place that you are taking the text from is the Website of the subject of the article most of the time such content is inappropriate for our use here to create an encyclopedia article about a subject that presents the subject as it it seen by the maintream academia, including both good points and bad points, and not a free advertisement.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Abthomps and welcome to the Teahouse. The issue is whether you can copy material into the article. It will need to have a citation (reference) anyway. The material is copyrighted by the Foundation, which is not the US Government. Did you copy the material from the website, or just use the information there to write the article? If not a copy, all you need to do is provide the exact source page as the reference for each section. See User:Yunshui/References for beginners for how to do this. It is also good to use references independent of the museum website. There is a nice article at "The AMC Museum" (PDF). Airlift Tanker Quarterly. 14 (3): 6–10. Summer 2006. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
All the advice above is good advice. Please also read WP:COI and note that per the terms of service, you must declare your COI, preferably on your user page. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

how to request for Topic Ban?

If any user has a single purpose account to edit only one page over the years and that too from unreliable sources then how we can ask for topic ban of the user so that he/she will not able to edit that article? Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 19:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a matter for WP:ANI unless the page they're editing is subject to arbcom sanctions in which case WP:AE is the place to file an enforcement request. Note, I have not looked into the situation of whether a topic ban is appropriate, I'm just trying to answer your question. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Winner 42, thanks for reply, If you have time how you will see case on Popular Front of India, see one user's contribution [1], since 2011 he is editing same page, his 70-80% mainspace edits are on one page only, he also pushes his POV and involve in edit wars. He give sources like "Muslim Mirror", "Two Circles" etc which are highly unreliable sources. Very few edits of him from reliable sources. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 19:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Moreover Popular Front of India is known as militant organization while this user only writes "positive" things about it, he writes alleged "social work" of organization. He is most probably activist of that organization. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 19:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Popular Front of India is in India and so is subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. Arbitration Enforcement is a more efficient process than WP:ANI. Has the editor in question been formally notified of the discretionary sanctions with the appropriate template? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I saw his talk page, he has been never notified for that, thanks for notifying the editor. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 19:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

references

Hi, I am trying to create a page about a producer I represent. Ive tried writing it in a straightforward manner, not like a bio, but it keeps getting rejected. Im wondering if i need to cite more references, or if there is anything I can do to make sure this gets approved. Any tips would be greatly appreciated! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Doubleujones/sandbox&action=edit Doubleujones (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The best advice we can give is please don't. You have an insurmountable conflict of interest (which you must disclose, preferably on your talk page, per our terms of use) and are strongly advised not to try to create the article. On a more detailed level, you must cite reliable, third party sources that demonstrate that the subject meets the notability guidelines. Hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
At the moment, Doubleujones, you have only one reference in your draft, and since that is from Warner Music, who I take it are Monson's publishers, it is probably not independent. If you are going to write an article about him, I would recommend that you assemble several pieces of writing about him where neither the writer nor the publisher has any connection with him, and write your draft 100% based on these independent sources. If you cannot find such sources, then it is not possible at present to write an acceptable article about him - which is what "not notable" means. --ColinFine (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

About article approval

Hello sir, First of all i would like to say thank you for providing this platform to new editors like us. I want to know that how to get article approval ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IVickyChoudhary (talk • contribs) 21:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Read Your first article, and use the Article Wizard to create the article in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I've posted a welcome banner to your talk page. Read the policies that are linked to for additional information about how to edit Wikipedia collaboratively. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi IVickyChoudhary. The most important thing to understand about articles is that the information it contains must be verifiable and the subject must be notable, as we use that latter word here to describe the world taking note of the topic by publishing substantive material about it in reliable, secondary sources that are entirely unconnected to the topic.

For example, newspaper articles, books, magazine and journal articles – ones that that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (these standards thus generally exclude press releases, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, some random person's website, most blogs, forums, directory entries, other Wikipedia articles, mere mentions of the topic, and so on).

With that in mind, the best path to writing a proper article—one that will "stick" and starts on the right foot—is to look for and gather such proper sources first, if they exist. Digest them, and then let what they say guide your writing hand (without copying their words), rather than writing what you know and then trying to find sources for it. As you use a source to write content in your own words, you then cite the source as where you learned the information. If you can't find those sources for the topic, or course, don't write about that topic.

There are many other things involved – writing from a neutral standpoint and never announcing new things, not already reported by the world – but understanding this will serve you well.

The page you wrote about yourself and that was deleted fell afoul of many of these policies and guidelines I've mentioned. I think you would be best served not attempting to write anything more like that. It is inappropriate here, and honestly has no chance whatever of remaining. We understand that many people are expecting Wikipedia to be similar to many other types of social media websites, but it's not. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Help expanding First Ladies: Influence & Image

Hello, I'm Jeremy Art, Digital & Social Media Specialist at C-SPAN. I recently joined Wikipedia to suggest occasional updates to C-SPAN-related articles. Because of my conflict of interest, I will not edit articles related to C-SPAN myself, but will ask other editors to review my suggestions and, if they see fit, make the changes themselves.

My first project proposes an expanded version of the First Ladies: Influence & Image entry. I have created a draft of the article that provides additional information on the show's background, production and other media and uploaded it to my user space. I have also posted requests on the First Ladies: Influence & Image Talk page, WikiProject Television Talk page and WikiProject Women's History Talk page. I understand Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules and I will follow them. Would anyone be willing to review my proposal and make the changes?

Thanks!

C-SPAN Jeremy (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, C-SPAN Jeremy. Personally, I do not see the need to mention all the non-notable producers and academic advisors in the text of the article. There seems to be a strain of promotionalism here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Need help understanding exactly why my entry was not approved.

Note: this appears to be about Draft:Global Hope Network International and Global Hope Network International

Greetings. I came here at the suggestion of someone named Anupmehra. Last year my draft entry for a nonprofit was rejected for lack of notability, etc. I don't want to seem like a dummy, but I really don't understand quite what Wikipedia means by this. The people who commissioned me to write their entry have provided, I believe, about all the information they could, and we would all like to see the organization included if at all possible. Notwithstanding this, the entry was put on the back burner in light of other priorities, so was recently deleted. I applied for reinstatement today so I could work with someone to review it with me.

I still have a draft saved elsewhere, as well - I could just use some assistance here.

Thank you in advance for any help you can provide.71.53.230.137 (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

See the comments included with the rejection of the article. It is highly promotional. That is, it is not neutral about the organization. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. It has neutral articles, not promotional web pages. Also, read the conflict of interest policy, because you have a conflict of interest if you have been commissioned to write the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Since all Wikipedia articles should be written almost entirely based on what people unconnected with the subject have written about it, the only information that the nonprofit could possibly supply that would be relevant is a list of references to pieces about it written and published by people with no connection to it. --ColinFine (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Need to delete an article, please.

I uploaded something this morning, and it looked terrible--needs more work before we make it go live. How do I delete it so I can start over? Thanks

1956okie (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You can tag it with the G7 template as I have done now for you now. It looks like you might be a bit confused as how to create an article on Wikipedia, I recommend using the article wizard. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much! It's been years since I worked on a Wiki page, and I'm really rusty...

1956okie (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

1956okie, it's deleted. --NeilN talk to me 18:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles that do not have a talk page

Hey. Is there a list of all articles that don't have a talk page? —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi DangerousJXD, I don't think it's readily available. A database report like this needs to be generated. Perhaps MZMcBride could lend a hand? - NQ (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Why? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean a list of article that don't yet have a talk page? An article has a talk page as soon as anything, either discussion or templates, is added to the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
To add, creating them just for the sake of it, isn't a really productive activity. Nthep (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
True. Stub articles often don't have a talk page, and may not need one until two or more editors decide to improve the article. Some articles that do have talk pages haven't had discussions on them for years. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmm...an idea for why this would be useful would be to identify pages that have yet to be marked as part of a WikiProject. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Where have you got the idea that every page needs to be part of a WikiProject? The way to identify which pages should be part of a WikiProject is to run that project's parent category(ies) through WikiProjectTagger, not to go looking for untagged pages and try to find a project to shoehorn each one into. – iridescent 19:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Iridescent: I wasn't trying to imply that every article has to be in a WikiProject, I was simply suggesting a way this list may be useful. Wasn't aware of WikiProjectTagger, thank you. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

My references are not auto-populating in the reference list

I have been trying for months to get an article posted to Wikipedia, and I can't seem to get the process to work for me. Granted this is my first article, so I'm sure I'm doing things incorrectly, but I've watched tutorial videos, gone through the Wikipedia Tutorials and wizards and I have had no luck.

I'm trying again, and have placed the reference code around all my cited statements, and nothing is happening in my reference list.

Can a experienced editor PLEASE lend me some assistance? I can't seem to get anywhere on my own.

Dowbyc (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dowbyc:, which article are you talking about, your account only has the one edit in the shape of this question? Nthep (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I only have the one article, I can't seem to wrap my head around how to do this so I haven't been able to make any more.

The one article on the account is the one that I need help with please! Dowbyc (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dowbyc: There are no articles under your account. Could you give us a link please? - NQ (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
(ec) I'm sorry you are having trouble, but when we look at your contributions it looks like your only edits are to this teahouse. Do you remember the name of the article? Is it possible you created it with another account? Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template%3AAfc+preload%2Fdraft&editintro=Template%3AAfC+draft+editintro&summary=&nosummary=&minor=&title=Draft%3ARon+E.+Scott&create=Create+new+article+draft
It looks like it is an article draft... but I don't know you to publish from there. My options are to save page, see changes and preview. Dowbyc (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Right so the article is Draft:Ron E. Scott. The references are populating the reference list fine but the references themselves are n't food enough. Half of them are using other Wikipedia articles are references; apart from Wikipedia not being considered a reliable source for itself those articles don't mention Scott. Two of the others are just a link to websites without being specific enough to mention Scott which leave one which helps towards establishing notability. It needs more than just that one so try other sources but avoid any sites like those of companies he is associated with. Nthep (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
okay, I will look into better sources. Thank You for your help.

I'm sure I'll be back here again at some point. Thank You Dowbyc (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Clean up

This is about an article Khamoshiyan. Which has been tagged for clean up regarding grammatical errors. I had edited this article few days back and to best of my knowledge don't belive it has any more grammatical errors. So what is the process of getting the tag removed or some of the elderly members can point out some other kind of flaws to be rectified.srini (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Srinivasprabhu933. Any editor may remove a tag if they think it is no longer appropriate (make sure you give a meaningful error summary). If anybody disagrees, they can reinstate the tag, and then you can have a discussion on the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi srini, just a note to point out that your post here contains several grammar and language errors, so I'd suggest that someone else should rather evaluate the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

submitting article from my sandbox for submission

Although I am not yet ready and must add a discography and a few other facts and links, when I have finished and am ready to submit for review and hopefully acceptance on wikipedia, how do I move my article out of the sandbox. thanks mary p Paulhus15 (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Paulhus15, just add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page, the first reviewer will take care of moving it. BTW the draft also needs a lead above the first section heading that briefly introduces the subject and summarizes the whole article. See WP:LEAD for futher guidance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
thanks so much Roger for your kind help. I have added an intro although I may adjust it a little before submission. Paulhus15 (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

editing the infobox

Hello! My name is Mihaela and I need to edit (add more info) to the infobox of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaron_Meiri In need some guidance on how to open the infobox, since I don't seem to find it anywhere (not even at the begining of the article).

Waiting for your reply. Many thanks!


Miha dani (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Miha dani. The problem I suspect you're having is that you've been trying to use one of the article's internal [edit] links and by default there is no link to open up the first section, where the infobox is. Articles have links to [edit] sections of them in their body but there is also an "edit" or "edit this page" link at the very top of the page. That top-of-the-page edit link opens up the entire article for editing, rather than just a section. It is also actually possible to access the first section with one of those internal edit links but you have to override the default. First, there is an option at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets to tick the box for "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page". Also, if you click on one of those existing internal edit links and then change the number at the end of the URL to 0 (zero), that too will open up the top section for editing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Miha dani. The fourth line of the edit window says {{Infobox person, followed by a dozen lines of its parameters: you put content in by giving values to some of those parameters.
But, if I might suggest, adding information to the infobox is far from the most important thing to do to the article. If somebody does not address the serious issues at the top (particularly the issue of references) then the article is likely to get deleted. Playing with the infobox won't help save it. Every single claim in the article should be individually cited to a reliable independent published source: see referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 08:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I have a related question. Several times I have tried unsuccessfully to add lines to existing infoboxes (not fill in a blank line, but insert a new line with appropriate information). Each time (using the "Edit source" link) I could type the new parameter and its value, but they were not saved. What is the correct procedure for adding a new parameter to an existing infobox? Eddie Blick (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey Eddie. If I understand your question, you were trying to add information next to a "parameter" or "field" in an infobox when the parameter does not exist. Each infobox template has a source page, the template itself – in fact, any time you see any template when editing, e.g., {{Some Name}}, it is calling information from its source page, which will always be at Template:Some Name. Thus, when you see {{Infobox musical artist}}, for example, the template itself is at Template:Infobox musical artist, and the code there defines its use everywhere that it is employed (transcluded). It is the code on that source page that would need to be changed to define a new field and how it appears. Trying to add an undefined parameter to a transclusion of the template is like trying to hang up a tool in your garage when you never placed the hook in the wall. Doing so will either break the template output or be ignored by it.

There are two things that may stop you from adding a new parameter yourself directly. First, many high use templates are protected from editing because vandalism to them, or even good faith but poor edits, will make that change propagate to every single use (Infobox musical artist is, for example, protected so that only administrators and those with the template editor right may change it, and you can see why when noting that it is transcluded in over 86,000 places). The second is that if you click on "View source" at that page (what is provided at the top of the page instead of "edit" because of the protection), you'll see the code that makes it function is somewhat complex.

What you can do instead is to go to the talk page, which would be in this case at Template talk:Infobox musical artist, and make a request for a new parameter to be added. If you don't get a response, you might also draw attention to your thread by posting above it the template {{edit fully-protected}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; I appreciate the clarification. I didn't know that background for infoboxes. Now I understand. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Rude Talk Page Comment

A comment was left on my talk page (which I recently removed) by an anonymous editor. The comment contained (what I consider) inappropriate language, along with hateful, uncalled for, and pointless remarks about Taylor SWift. What do I do, and is there a way to stop this or block that editor? BluJay (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

BluJay, as the comment left at your talk page is the only edit that IP has ever made, their is probably nothing to do but what you have done. As this is the internet, you are going to run into some strangeoids here just like anywhere on the net. He is entitled to his opinion of Miss Swift; with her being in the public eye, it does not even rise to the level of libelous, and you are more than welcome to remove almost anything from your own talk page. You could have removed this from an article talk page too as it is obvious WP:SOAPBOX. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
John from Idegon Thank you, and one more question. What do I do if these messages continue? BluJay (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much what you did. If it continues to be from the exact same IP, then after you warn them several times, an admin could block them for a short time. If it is from a floating IP editor, which is most of them, then all you can do is delete and ignore. It isn't about you and I thoroughly doubt it will reoccur, so just smile, realize the world is populated by some great and some not so great people and move on. You are not Ms. Swift's daddy (are you? j/k) and it is very inconsequential in the bigger scheme of things. John from Idegon (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: :D Thank you again! I'll make sure to ask here if i have any other questions! BluJay (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

What have I done wrong?

First, let me clarify that this account is a WP:CLEANSTART. I had an older Wikipedia account that I stopped using. That account only had about 500 edits, so despite having some experience, I am unfamiliar with many Wikipedia policies. I made some unwelcome edits with my old account, but I never had any sanctions or blocks with my old account. I stopped using my old account a few months ago. After reading the criteria for a clean start, I decided to create a new account and to be extra careful with my edits so as to follow Wikipedia policies. I also added Template:Learning the ropes on my user page to notify other editors that I am still learning many Wikipedia policies.

Recently, however, User:Flyer22 said on my talk page that she 'cannot be fooled by editors like me', saying that she does not think that my account is a clean start. She said that my use of the Learning the ropes template is 'beyond deceptive'. She also noted on her talk page that I am a WP:SOCK.

I don't understand why I would be considered a sockpuppet, when my old account was clearly abandoned and I never had any sanctions or blocks with my old accounts. I value Wikipedia as a resource and all my edits are good-faith edits. I obviously understand the harm of sockpuppets to Wikipedia. Do I look like a sockpuppet? What have I done wrong with editing? Sovereign/Sentinel 03:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That you are still pushing this is silly to me. Well, except for the fact that you are trying to get me in trouble. Yes, you do understand why you would be considered a WP:Sockpuppet. And I did not call you one; I implied that you are one. And I won't be apologizing for it and/or stating that I am wrong on it. Your contributions, reply or lack thereof on your talk page, and this and this told me all that I need to know as far as your editing history goes. You are not a WP:Newbie in the least; your editing style, and the fact that you cite WP:Policies and guidelines with veteran understanding told me that. And then you told me that you've edited Wikipedia with a different account, which, as noted, is something I already knew. And yet you let others think that you are a WP:Newbie, including with that "learning the ropes" tag. If anyone doubts my ability to spot WP:Sockpuppets, they can look at my user page and at the current state of my talk page, including this section, where WP:Administrator Spartaz and I noted asking editors about previous accounts they edited under and catching WP:Sockpuppets. Refrain from WP:Pinging me in the future unless needed. Flyer22 (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) Flyer22 deals a lot with vandalism and vandals and through the years of experience has accumulated a knowledge of patterns of disruption. I am not certain what specifically has caused their concern but your editing pattern is not typical.
As for what to do, you can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Alternative_account_notification and notify a tool holding individual who will be able to vouch for your WP:CLEANSTART. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying that only newbies can use the Learning the ropes template? Sovereign/Sentinel 04:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
TRPoD: I have added the alternative account notification on my user page, and by doing so, have exposed my old account. Thank you for your suggestion. Sovereign/Sentinel 04:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Sovereign Sentinel: If you wish, you can request WP:oversight of that edit so it is hidden from public view. The concern of other editors was that you might be have been previously blocked or banned and therefore not eligible for a cleanstart. I apologize for the trouble we've caused you. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Winner 42: I have now made it clear on my user page that my old account is User:Kai Tak, which has never been previously blocked or banned. Although adding this to my user page defeats the purpose of a clean start, I decided to do this to avoid confusion. Thanks for your clarifications, and thanks for motivating me to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Sovereign/Sentinel 04:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Sovereign Sentinel. I have looked at both accounts, and in my opinion, you did not make a clean start. One of the basic principles of a clean start is that you completely abandon editing of the same articles and topic areas. Your old account had the name of the old Hong Kong airport (I flew in there once and will never forget it) and with that old account, you heavily edited articles related to aviation, aircraft and air travel. Your new account heavily edits articles related to aviation, aircraft and air travel. Both accounts have also edited the very same article about a relatively obscure mathematical topic. When an account which has been editing aviation topics heavily does a fresh start, it should edit articles about butterflies, artists, baseball players, trout fishing streams, classical music, dinosaurs, or thousands of other entirely unrelated topics. Aviation topics are off limits for the new account, as is the specific math article. Please conduct yourself in accordance with our policies and guidelines going forward. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Cullen328, Wikipedia:Clean start does not purport to forbid an editor from returning to former favorite articles, topics, or styles of editing. What it says is that an editor who does so may well be identiied with his or her prior identity, so editors seriously wishing to make a clean break with their past are well advised to change editing focus. More specifically it says: "{{xt|However, returning to a favorite topic after a clean start carries a substantial risk that other editors will recognize and connect the old and new accounts. This can result in arguments, further loss of reputation, and blocks or bans, even if your behavior while using the new account was entirely proper. For this reason, it is best to completely avoid old topic areas after a clean start.}" But a clean start does not in any way put particular topics "off limits" to the editor involved. @Sovereign Sentinel: DES (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
DESiegel (DES), the lead of WP:Clean start currently states, "The old account must be clearly discontinued, and the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. It is expected that the new account will be a true 'fresh start', will edit in new areas and avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior." And while the policy is a little lighter on its wording lower on the page, it strongly discourages editing in the same areas. In my opinion, it should outright prohibit it, similar to the lead wording, for reasons that have been stated at that policy talk page and are clear from the policy itself. And, hopefully, it will in the future. Flyer22 (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, Sovereign Sentinel stating that he "made some unwelcome edits with [his] old account, but [he] never had any sanctions or blocks with [his] old account." sounds like he was trying to avoid scrutiny, which is another rationale that WP:Clean start does not like. Flyer22 (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, what was the point of his "clean start" if he was simply going to resume editing the same areas he did before? That's like me throwing away my Flyer22 account and stating that I'm starting fresh...but continuing to edit the same areas and in the same exact way. That's a clean start, how? In name only. I'd have a brand new account and no one would be the wiser as to who I am. That is, until they wise up. That type of cloaked editing is problematic, unless the person is doing it for a WP:LEGITSOCK reason. Flyer22 (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Do not bite the newbies is a good policy or guideline for experienced editors. I have occasionally had another experienced editor remind me of it. However, it becomes problematic when it is cited by an editor in their own defense. I have known of editors who used it as a cudgel to rebuke advice about the need to edit collaboratively, etc. I think that an editor who knows Wikipedia well enough to quote that guideline in their own defense is an editor who is not a newbie. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If policies, guidelines and well-established consensus says: "please seriously consider not editing in certain disruptive ways, although it is not strictly forbidden", and then an editor ignores that and heads off on their own merry way, they ought to expect and be prepared for intense scrutiny of their edits. Any assumption otherwise is a variety of foolishness. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Notability and Citing References from Direct Interview

My article was declined: "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject."

I included the references, therefor, I'm assuming its the notability that caused my article to be declined. What can I do?

I'm having trouble finding secondary sources online to reference.

Information about the topic can be found directly: http://torajones.info/theparrotmom/education-resources/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yvkyGFvJQY https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMK4nq3z3IarbOsAWe5ayVw?view_as=public https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheParrotMom/ Interviews with Veterinarian Interview with author Information is taught in local Parrot/Bird Clubs Information influenced by book: http://www.thriftbooks.com/w/guide-to-a-well-behaved-parrot_mattie-sue-athan/368148/?isbn=0812049969&mkwid=ll2QdX2q%7Cdc&pcrid=70112894112&gclid=CjwKEAjw8LOsBRDdub-swPW8riISJAAnmS01BSHQIT2eFXQ_qnwQgFfpCl7MFEUAwF_hVZ4ti9y2ghoCqGTw_wcB

AvianstudyAvianstudy (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Avianstudy/5 pillars of parrot hood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I believe the discussion is in relation to the draft above. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Avianstudy. Sources don't have to be online, but they must be reliable sources, and have no connection with the subject of the article. An acceptable Wikipedia article must be based almost 100% on sources independent of the subject, so if such sources don't exist it is not possible to write an acceptable article: that is what we mean by notability. --ColinFine (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Username

I need to change my username. My desired username was not allowed as it was similar to an existing name. I checked the contributions of that Username-which is zero. And the account was created in 2006.Sgdgfr67586987 (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

See WP:RENAME for an article on exactly this topic. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
@Sgdgfr67586987: Just to let you know, I had the same issue with my original username, it was too long and not the one I had wanted. I found it very easy to change my name, because the name I had wanted (the name I using now) was previously used by an inactive user. I wish you luck! BluJay (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

help needed to save my article

i wrote my first article , and im aware that , i havent provided the source details or reference , coz im finding it tough to understand , and now wikipedia says my article will be deleted by 29th of june 2015 , plz help me , article name is dopeadelicz Modernmadrasi (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Modernmadrasi: and welcome to the Teahouse. There appear to be 2 deletion tags on Dopeadelicz- the one you mention is no longer relevant, because it says that the article will be deleted if you don't add at least 1 reliable source into it within a week, and you've added 2, so I'll remove that one. The second one says that the band isn't notable according to Wikipedia general notability criteria or music criteria. To get rid of this one, you need to add more reliable sources about the band, for example newspaper/magazine articles about them, or a list of chart positions (if they've been in a music chart). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Both of the tags have been removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I removed them both. The BLPPROD didn't apply because there were reliable sources, and the sources/article made a credible claim of some significance, so wasn't suitable for an A7 deletion in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

How to proceed to post an organizational logo to the main article about the org?

I’m struggling to understand the WP guidelines regarding getting permission to post an organizational logo to the main article about the org.

I’ve made some contributions to the article on Top Tier Detergent Gasoline [2], a gasoline standard that the major automakers have negotiated with leading gasoline makers. The automakers have created an organization to administer the standard.

To add to the visual appeal of the article, I’d like to use the logo of the Top Tier organization, which can be seen at the top right of their home page, here [3]

The Top Tier org, of course, owns the rights to its logo. Do I understand correctly from this WP guideline [4]that this company must give up all rights to the logo in order for it to be used in a WP article? I believe that this is the requirement for photos that are used in WP articles, but is it also the case for graphical creations of this type?

I am wondering what steps I need to go through in order to post this logo at the top of the TTDG article? What terms and conditions apply to the posting of the logo?

Thanks for any light you can shed on this issue.

EMP (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse! I really appreciate you trying to do things properly. The usual method for inserting images to articles is via commons. Those images need to be distributed under a compatible license. Basically, the owner has to agree that anyone can use the image and modify and distribute it provided they say who it belongs to. Most companies understandably don't want this for their logos. In this particular case, there is an exception in copyright law called Fair use. On Wikipedia it is handled by the policy Wikipedia:Non-free content. In short, in specific cases, you can use one very poor quality logo on the article directly about the company, just to help readers identify it. However, I hate to say this, but you should read the full policy before proceeding because this is a legal matter and they are complicated. Hope that helps! Happy Squirrel (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  Done I just went ahead and uploaded the logo after capturing it from the offical site. That is usually the best way. The upload wizard guides an editor through the process pretty easily, although reading the policy first is a very good idea. Also see Wikipedia:Logos. The main issues are:
  1. Make sure you get the accurate logo from an official source such asa the official site.
  2. Save a copy to your own computer.
  3. If the logo is high resolution, scale it down before reuploading.
  4. Use the upload wizard, and make the selections for "non-free logo". Fill out the requested information particularly the exact URL or othe source from which you obtained the logo. Specify the exact article you intend to use the logo on.
  5. Add the logo to the article, either in an info box or by itself, at the top. See the picture tutorial for instructions on that step.
  6. Add a fair use rationale on the talk page of the article, see {{Non-free use rationale}}
See Help:File page, also. I hope that helps. DES (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

nude photo

can I give a full nude photo of a real woman in any page?Farzana zardari (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Farzana zardari: hello, and welcome! Wikipedia is not censored; there are images of nudity where it is relevant. Most subjects, of course, are not improved by a picture of a nude woman so we would not want one added to any page. If you have a photo that you think should be uploaded to the project, please be certain that you both own the copyright to the image, and the person in the photograph has given consent for the image to be publicized. See also the guideline at Wikipedia Commons regarding nudity; for many types of nude photos Commons already has "enough." VQuakr (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Farzana zardari. A good way to start our discussion is to create a proposed list of ten MEN who should have a nude image included. Men you admire, of course. Who is your personal male hero? The best of the male best. Do you think a nude image would improve that article? Do you own such a male nude image of your hero that you are willing to upload at Wikimedia Commons? If so, name the hero and provide the file name. so we can take a closer look. Then, we will talk. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
There may be a conflict between relevant and copyright. If a woman has posed nude, for instance, for a centerfold, the image would be relevant to the article about her. However, the image is subject to the magazine's copyright, and would not fit in with any of the exceptions for non-free content. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

reviews please

if there are any experts that have a moment to chime in on a contested page please do so; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vector_Marketing#Proposals_Suggestion

i don't think I Have handled myself appropriately but was getting frustrated. The last part where i just add my proposals... do you think that is a good way to handle a dispute? Then if I am wrong I will carry on. Unless of course I am banned :( Jadeslair (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_355&oldid=1089810614"