Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 397

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 390 ← Archive 395 Archive 396 Archive 397 Archive 398 Archive 399 Archive 400

Cleanup

Please check out Faridabad and List of education facilities in Faridabad. Should they not be merged? Further please guide on Wikipedia guidelines for educational institutes. Is it necessary to list each and every school of the city without any source? Also please guide on the layout of the article related to cities. Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Capankajsmilyo and welcome to the Teahouse. Even if this is a place where almost anything regarding editing can be discussed, the best place to propose mergers and the content of an article is on the talk pages connected to the articles. You will find the talk pages if you click on the "Talk" tab right over the name of the articles. As for a guide on layout, there is none. The best way to see how an article about a city should be made is to look at some other articles about other cities that are about the same size, preferably in the same country as the article you are editing. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

How to create a Wikipedia page for my organisation?

Hi there,

My name is Kunal Sehgal. I'm the digital marketing manager of QiK Stay (www.qikstay.com), which is a chain of branded hotels in India, just like Oyo Rooms (www.oyoroooms.com).

Could you please let me know how to go about this?

Thanks!

180.188.236.16 (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I have a secret way to get that done that is so easy, you will not have to do any work!
Step one: Do not do anything on this site.
Step two: Ask QiK Stay to do their job so well that people who do not work for QiK Stay will write about QiK Stay in newspapers and books.
Step three: Wait for more people who do not work for QiK Stay to write a Wikipedia article based on those newspapers and books.
See how easy it is? You do not have to do any real work!
If you think I'm joking... Well, if you or anyone else who works for QiK Stay tries to create articles about QiK Stay, we will delete the article and block the account. It's nothing against QiK Stay, we do not want anyone writing about themselves or companies they work for, and we have very little patience for anyone who is paid to edit the site. See WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMO for more details. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Ian.thomson, while in general your advice is good, you go too far. If that user creates an article about QiK we will not necessarily delete it and we probably won't block the account. Original poster: as Ian says, you are strongly discouraged from writing an article about your own company; but you are not forbidden. If you decide to try, I would advise you to use the Article wizard to create it in draft space. It must be almost 100% based on what people who have no connection with the company have published about it - Wikipedia has very little interest in what any company (or anybody) has said, or wants to have said, about themselves. If you can find several substantial items about the company by independent writers (which rules out anything published by the company, and also most interviews, and pieces based on a press release from the company) and published in reliable sources (which excludes social media, forums, wikis, and most blogs) then it is possible that there can be an article on the company; and while you are likely to find it hard to write satisfactorily because of your conflict of interest, it is not impossible. If those independent sources do not exist, then it is impossible for anybody to write an acceptable article on the company at present (the Wikipedia jargon for this is that the company is 'not notable'), and you should not spend time trying. One final point - if you do go ahead, you must disclose your interest as a paid contributor: see WP:PAID. --ColinFine (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Using a poster as a source

Problem is back in 2007 people who went to gigs/festivals did not document them on websites. I was at these gigs and I even have actual posters of the festival which clearly states this band played! They even toured as main support for My Chemical Romance and again there is no documentation apart from posters I have! I have magazines that review the band at these festivals? surely I can upload that to use as evidence???? please help someone! Majorityverb (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Majorityverb, a poster is a publication so you can cite it. The {{cite sign}} template makes it easy. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

How do I keep a neutral point of view in a wikipedia page I created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VSK1008 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, VSK1008. I have moved your question from the bottom to the top. Briefly stated, a Wikipedia article should represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.' You can find the complete policy at the shortcut WP:NPOV. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
can you check my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palakkad%E2%80%93Pollachi_line if it is in a neutral point of view? VSK1008 (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, VSK1008, welcome back to the Teahouse. Yes, the article was suitably NPOV as you edited it. However, I noticed some other problems with the article, some of which I fixed.
Wikipedia articles should use complete sentences. I have corrected this for you. Also, exact dates should be given — "this is my advice as of 7 October 2015", not "this is my advice currently" which would quickly become meaningless. At least the year, preferably the month and day, should be included, as you will see from my edits to the article.
Sources published before an event happens cannot be used to prove it later happened! Only one of the sources you cited for the inspection having been completed was published after completion of the inspection. (Even then I am concerned that the article is misleading, as it will be several weeks yet before the official report on the inspection is completed and the track is opened for service along the whole route.) I have marked the sources which were published too early with {{failed verification|date=October 2015}}, which displays as [not in citation given] in the article. I didn't simply remove those sources from the article in case there was other information that could be cited from them.
If you have any further questions, feel free to come back here and ask. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 12:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Credible Sources / Bibliography

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and I am a student editor in Human Factors in Aviation at UWO. I was wondering if these are good, credible sources to back up what I will be writing on some articles?

Source 1 Source 2 Source 3

Please leave messages on my talk page. Thank you in advance.

Sincerely. Hseong2 (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(answered at talk page as requested) —GrammarFascist contribstalk 13:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Cry For Silence

I cannot find any more evidence online that this band played the festivals which I saw them play with my own eyes back in 2007. I do have physical published magazines that review this bands live performance that day?? can I upload these as evidence? also the link that needs a better reference refers to Download Festivals Wikipedia which clearly states this band played on Sunday 15th June 2008 (Tuborg Stage), plus the actual profile picture of them is on stage at this festival!!

Some please help me! Majorityverb (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Majorityverb. Offline sources are perfectly acceptable, so you can cite print magazines without needing to scan them in (which might breach copyright, in any case). Another Wikipedia aren't isn't a reliable source, but the photo is obviously pretty good evidence that you're not making this up! Cordless Larry (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Majorityverb. To be more specific, not only do we not need scans, we do not want scans. As Cordless Larry says, these would breach copyright, and, with the widespread use of Photoshop, scans don't "prove" anything in any case. If you use the standard toolbar, use Cite > Templates > Cite Journal and fill in the fields, especially issue date and/or number, and page number - assuming these magazines are "reliable sources" not self-published fan-zines, they are fully acceptable. - Arjayay (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
As for the pictures, Majorityverb: you can cite the article, as Cordless Larry says, but you probably can't do anything with the pictures. They are almost certainly in copyright, so unless you can find the copyright owners and get them to license them, they may not be uploaded or used. --ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Err - when saying "the actual profile picture of them is on stage at this festival!!" I think Majorityverb is referring to the picture already used in the infobox of the article, which Majorityverb took him/her-self, not one in a magazine. - Arjayay (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah. Sorry. It was the word "profile" that threw me. I forgot that people who are not used to Wikipedia think that we have things called 'profiles'. --ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

African Archaeology Project

I am an archaeological graduate student at California State University San Bernardino and am serving as a research consultant for an African Archaeology class where the professor, a respected archaeologist who conducted decades of excavations and surveys throughout East and South Africa, has noticed a severe lack of Wilkipedia information on many sites and technological industries from the middle Stone Age to the late Iron Age. As a consequence, he has tasked the students in the course with completing a fully researched and fully cited Wikipedia-ready article for approximately 30 of these sites and I am serving as the coordinator for this endeavor. How would I go about requesting volunteer help to turn their finished product into respectably formatted Wikipedia articles at the end of the Fall Quarter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archaeologyhunter (talk • contribs) 01:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Archaeologyhunter. See WP:Education program. Generally, we give better answers than just a link, but the education program is a rather obscure corner of Wikiland that I know nothing about. Seems one of our other hosts works there sometimes tho. Pinging Cullen328, ColinFine. John from Idegon (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Archaeologyhunter and John from Idegon, that's not an area I know about either. It sounds like a very worthwhile project. You should certainly look at the Education program(me), but I suggest you also approach WP:WikiProject Archaeology. --ColinFine (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@Archaeologyhunter: This sounds like a great project. I'm Ryan from the Wiki Education Foundation. We're a non-profit that runs the Wikipedia Education Program in the United States and Canada, providing support for instructors and students as they improve Wikipedia as part of a class assignment. There's interactive training, brochures, a system for coordinating student work, and staff to help out and provide feedback. I would encourage you and the professor to check out our website for more information, and in particular this page for instructors has a good overview of materials available. If you tell me the name of your professor, I'd be happy to reach out to start a conversation.
For a fall 2015 class, I'd recommend moving quickly to get started. Almost everybody underestimates the amount of time it takes to produce good quality Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is easy to edit, but hard to edit well.
One more thing: We have another program that might be of interest. It's called Wikipedia Visiting Scholars. The idea is to connect experienced Wikipedia editors with educational institutions to give the editor remote access to the school library's research materials. In exchange, the editor agrees to use the resources to improve articles in an area of mutual interest. Writing Wikipedia articles can be difficult, but there are lots of people who do it all the time anyway. If you give one of them who happens to be interested in archaeology access to university library resources, you can work with them to improve areas of the site where you see coverage gaps or opportunities for improvement. This is unrelated to the classroom project, but another way to address the shortcomings the professor notes.
I'll watch this page for responses, but do feel free to reach out by email (ryan at wikiedu dot org) or leave a message on my talk page. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability

Please check the notability of Rahul Dalal. Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Playing cricket for a first-class team is prima facie evidence of notability.--ukexpat (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Capankajsmilyo, just to note that the Teahouse is primarily a place to learn about editing Wikipedia, rather than somewhere to make requests for action. In many cases, Teahouse regulars will be willing to help out, but the best thing would be for you to learn about how to assess notability with the help of the Teahouse, rather than requesting that someone else assesses it. You can read notability guidelines for cricketers at WP:NCRICKET. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please check my article

Hi! I created an article today. Could you please check it. [1] DashaG11 (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I checked it and it appears to be OK. It can use more fleshing out, but it makes the inclusion requirements. It's comprehensible, referenced, and gives clear info. Overall, it's good enough to be kept, although you may need to find some info/references about reviews of this software, like whether it gets good or bad reviews, who reviewed it (did any major tech sites try it?) etc. That should be easy, since there are a lot of geek sites out there.White Arabian mare (Neigh) 14:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
Hi! Thank you very much! I will add some reviews information! The information although is already based on the reviews made by well known tech sites (they are indicated in references). But I will search and add more.
Thank you very much once again! DashaG11 —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi DashaG11, and welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry to contradict White Arabian mare, but I'm not so sure that this meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines at present. Put simply, these require that the subjects of articles have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. I see a few sources cited in the Typeeto article, but I'm not sure that they constitute significant independent coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, DashaG11, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have made some corrections to the references already in the article. You should always include the author's name if one is listed in the work you are referencing, and you should also always include both the date the source was published (if one is given) and the date you accessed the source. If you are using the handy fill-in-the-blanks forms for your citations, which I recommend, there's a button that will fill in the access dates for you automatically. I also noticed that there were = signs at the ends of the titles in your citations for some reason. The title should be exactly as it appears in the source; I recommend copying and pasting to avoid typos or other errors.
If notable publications have reviewed the software, the article should state so rather than readers having to look for that information in the references section. For example, you might write, "A review in PC World stated that Typeeto was a rubbish product for a rubbish OS." Most notable publications will have a Wikipedia article already, like Lifehacker does. However, at least two of the three reviews currently cited appeared on blogs, which are generally not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia's definition. You're looking for magazines or newspapers, or online publications that have editorial oversight and do fact-checking. CNet would be an example of a website without a print version that's still counted as a reliable source — though I don't know whether CNet has written about Typeeto. Good luck finding more sources, and don't hesitate to come back if you have more questions. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 15:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, GrammarFascist, Cordless Larry. Thank you so much for your corrections and advice. I made some changes, please check if possible and let me know what you think. DashaG11 (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, DashaG11. I have made some more edits to the page. The most important ones were to replace too-close paraphrasing with either looser paraphrase or direct quotations. I also added a new source, which is in German. I don't understand German, but I used Google Translate to get a sense of what that article said. There aren't yet many reviews of Typeeto in English other than Lifehacker and some blogs, but there are a number of reviews in other languages including German, Spanish and Turkish. (Note that some of the foreign-language results may be blogs too.) You can use the format of the example I provided to add other foreign-language reviews if you wish. Be careful that what looks like a review is not just a reposting of a press release from the developer, though, especially when dealing with machine translation. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 11:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I think GrammarFascist has covered everything I would have said. You're on the right track, DashaG11, so I advise you to just keep looking for sources as and when the app gets reviewed. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
DashaG11, you've now edited the article to specify which game consoles Typeeto is compatible with, and that's good; however, a source stating that those specific consoles are supported needs to be cited at the end of the sentence. If you can't find a source stating that, then a {{citation needed}} tag should be put immediately after the console names. Good luck with finding additional sources — I see you have added one already. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 15:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Disappearance

I'm Lorenzodel2 and I just typed a question about references. When I typed the first wavy thing, it disappeared. Lorzendel2 (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason that your signature, and the rest of the text of your edit, disappeared, is that the editor of the previous section had a <ref> tag without the corresponding terminating</ref> tag. The rest of his text (and yours) was therefore treated as part of the ref. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding a show/hide able "Combo Box" for user box. (or something which remains tight & left-aligned)

Greeting people. Im looking for a "combo box" code for userboxes.

(NOT THE DEFAULT ONE)

(( userboxtop

| toptext =

| align =

| left =

| backgroundcolor =

| bordercolor =

| extra-css =

| textcolor =

))

*

*

*

((userboxbottom)) => put {}s instead ()s. ;)

The one which have Show/hide button.

The default code dosen't remain align for the right side of text, below the infobox. if anyone knows how to make it remain, Please tell me. i'll use the origin one.

forget about [last question], and thank you User:W.carter.

Appreciate you, all. Amir R. Pourkashef 13:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir R. Pourkashef (talk • contribs)

Hello again Amir R. Pourkashef. First of all please sign your post with the four ~~~~, otherwise the 'ping' will not be made. Second, you can try to use the table system for sorting your boxes. I use it on one of my subpages, see the code on User:W.carter/my WP. As for the hide function, that one is also used on my user page where you can see it and copy it. More about that option can be found here. Third, please don't use all caps when you post, that is seen as shouting here. I've fixed that in the heading. w.carter-Talk 14:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
wow, thanx a lot! Amir R. Pourkashef 16:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir R. Pourkashef (talk • contribs)

How does one determine possible sock puppets?

I have read the help pages on this, but I'm struggling to gauge the significance of the 'clues', if that makes sense.

I have 3 users taking turns to argue with me on a talk page and claiming consensus (and another who I'm sure is genuine). A new one each day, like clockwork. All have fairly short editing histories (though of course, so do I), all appear to be British, all are making the exact same points, all are very hostile, and all have an uncannily similar writing style.

But obviously I'm biased, and it's perfectly possible they could be 3 separate people. Or possibly 2 separate people. They're also clearly already angry, and I don't want to antagonise them further by making accusations. I guess what I'm asking is: Can anything be done? Should anything be done? If so, what?

Thanks. Uk55 (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for your question. To start a sockpuppet investigation, you must first have evidence. Below are some examples of valid reasons:
  • Similar usernames
  • Precocious edit history
  • Excessive support for one's cause 2.3.1 Excessive awarding of barnstars
    • Repeating the same disapproved activity
  • Editing identical articles
    • Edit warring
    • Deletion discussions
    • Knowledge that an obscure article exists
    • Connection to the article
    • Always there when needed
  • Chronology of edits
    • Days on and off
    • Accounts with occasional usage
    • Accounts used only briefly
  • Geography
    • Fictitious locality
  • Fictitious personality
  • Similar writing/editing styles
    • Common spelling/punctuation/grammar errors
  • Uploading of multimedia
    • IP sock puppetry
  • Single-purpose accounts
  • Behaviors on other sites
For more info, please see WP:SOSP. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 20:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I can also help you out with finding information for your sockpuppet investigation. If needed, just reply back on my talk page and we can get started. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 20:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Skyllfully: Hi, thanks for your help, but I was mainly looking for advice rather than information, as in, am I being reasonable in having suspicions in the first place? Though I get it's difficult to say without knowing the situation. Uk55 (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Uk55: and yes, you were correct in thinking that you should be careful about where and how you accuse someone of WP:SOCK-ing. Doing so in inappropriate forums with lack of appropriate evidence is a form of inappropriate personal attack. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom: Was that just a general comment, or are you saying this is an inappropriate forum and that I lack appropriate evidence? Uk55 (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Uk55: Sorry that was confusing. It is perfectly appropriate to ask here about "How do I handle this?" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom: Oh good, thanks for your help. Uk55 (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

off track discussion

@Uk55: Just because 3 people are British, that doesn't make them necessarily the same person. As a result, I've redacted your racism. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I am confused as to how one could conflate nationality = racism. That edits are geolocating from the place/are presented with the same nationalistic POV/have the same background are all key features in determining likelihood of sock puppet.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
It clearly isn't racism, nor is it harassment, Joseph2302. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The implication of their statement was "they're all British, therefore all the same person", which is racist. It's like saying every American Wikipedia editor is the same person. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: Goodness me. I literally just meant they were from the same country. I'm stunned by your interpretation. Uk55 (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Geographic proximity is one of a number of factors that might indicate sockpuppetry, so it is relevant. I have reported this incident at the AN/I noticeboard. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Then say "they're all from the same place" or "they're in a small geographical proximity", not "they're British"- the nationality doesn't make them sockpuppets. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
That's a gross simplification of what Uk55 said, but anyway, the place to discuss this now is at AN/I, not here. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
So "they all seem to be from Great Britain" would be okay. JohnInDC (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Regardless, this is supposed to be "A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia", and we shouldn't be biting newcomers without very good reason. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
This is very helpful.

MR1882 (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Italicised title after Italic title template removed?

I removed a recently placed italic title template on Abyei (per WP:ITALICTITLE). So far, so good. However, something else is forcing the title into italics (which begs the question as to why the editor thought ato add the template in the first place!), and has been for a while. It seems to have happened during this edit: this is what the article looked like before that edit, and this is what it looked like after. It's not a big deal, but I am curious to know what's going on. Any ideas? Bromley86 (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Bromley86, and welcome to the Teahouse. That page currently transcludes Template:Infobox court case which by default causes the page title to be shown in italics. To avoid this include |italic title=no in the parameters used with {{Infobox court case}}. Normally that infobox is used on a page that is entirely about a court case, so the italics are appropriate. I'm not sure that its use is a good idea in this case, but I don't know of any rule against it. DES (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks DES! Bromley86 (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

References of Letter/ Notes

I'm Lorzendel2. May letters and/or program notes, etc. from prominent or famous musicians or symphonic organizations be uploaded on Commons as references about composer Delton Lorenzo Hudson? Also, got a BOT message about a reference error that was made in the article. Don't know how to fix it?! Could someone help? (Already asked this question at the Help Desk, though.) Lorzendel2 (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the referencing syntax error by this edit, and another editor fixed some more ref errors for you. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Lorzendel2, and welcome to the Teahouse. In general, letters may not be cited as sources unless they have been published by a reliable source. Letters found in a published "Letters of So&So" could be cited, or letters published in a book dealing with the topic. But not ordinary personal letters. Program notes can be cited if they were published, perhaps in the organization's newsletter. If a source needs to be uploaded to commons to use it, then it shouldn't be used, and therefore there is no reason to upload a source as a source, ever. Moreover program notes and even letters are subject to copyright, and so could not be uploaded to commons without a free license from the author or copyright holder. DES (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, there would be copyright issues that would likely prevent them from being suitable candidates for Commons. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Does his mean I could return to my Sandbox to Source and resubmit the article? Thanks Lorzendel2 (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
You could, Lorzendel2 but I wouldn't pass it as it now stands. You need to source some unsourced statements, and remove unsourced opinion and puffery. Several points:
  • An exact birth date should not be listed unless it is sourced, and has been widely published or published with the consent of the subject, see WP:DOB.
  • Amazon.com should not normally be used as a source, nor any other vendor page.
  • https://musescore.com/user/68195/scores/93216 shows that the score is online, but it doesn't show how many people have viewed or listened to it. To say "The full score with complete realization in MP-3 sound has been previewed, (viewed/heard)_ by thousands of opera lovers online" needs a source that explicitly says that or gives a more precise number.
  • "It is transcendental is nature and influenced by N.A. spirituality-- the Great Spirit,Kachina spirits, etc. as well as by Eastern and Western metaphysical concepts. Yet, it could be called a "magic opera" also, in view of the story line." is analysis and opinion, and must be cited and attributed inline to an independent critical source or removed.
  • I have added some {{cn}} tags where I think additional sources are needed.
I hope all this is helpful. DES (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Falsely accused of being a sockpuppet

Hello again. Yesterday I posted here asking how to deal with three accounts I suspected were operated by the same person, not naming any names. I received good advice (thanks again), but haven't yet taken any action.

Well, it seems a user has been through my history and decided I was talking about them (I probably shouldn't say if I was or not), and responded by reporting me as a sock puppet of a user they apparently encountered in the past. Needless to say I'm not a sock puppet, I genuinely am a new user, and as a result am completely stuck how to deal with this.

Once again, any help will be greatly appreciated. Uk55 (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to add: The user mentioned my post here in his report, that's why I'm making the connection. Uk55 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhtpbank It will be closed with the Checkuser confirming no relation between you and the suggested sock master. When there is an accusation of sock puppetry, about the only thing the accused can do is be able to offer a valid explanation for why behavioral evidence should be viewed in a different manner. (In relation to some of the evidence in this case it might be "I was invited to the Teahouse by a message on my user page. When I got there, there were two postings about edit warring, and 3 about socks, and so I read up about them.") -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom:Hmm, ok. I hoped I wouldn't need to defend myself against such a transparent accusation. But what am I to do about this user? They've made accusations as a means of intimidation before (eg. accusing me of an edit war when I hadn't made an edit in 3 days), and have been very aggressive since they appeared. Thanks for your help, once again. Uk55 (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I want to create company page about my Company, I am confused about my limitations of introducing my company

I took reference from company articles like EXL, CampusEAI Consortium and I would like to create an article for my company.

One of my articles got rejected within 30 min of creation.

Any tips while writing a company article?? 18:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackBeltHelp1 (talk • contribs)

Hello @BlackBeltHelp1:, in order to have an article, the subject must meet the requirements of having been substantially covered by reliably published sources that are not related to the subject. You should also be aware of the conflict of interest policy and the fact that content must be presented in a neutral point of view because we are presenting an encyclopedia and not a free promotional platform. Also be aware that the Terms of Use that require you to identify if you are being paid to edit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I would like to someone review my article before I submit it to Wikipedia. Can anyone volunteer to HELP!!!

BlackBeltHelp1 (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

See Articles for Creation for information on how to have an article reviewed by a volunteer reviewer before submission. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, BlackBeltHelp1. I think you are probably wasting your time trying to create this article, but I may be mistaken, and I'll do what I can to advise you. The important thing to realise is that every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article should be individually cited to a reliable published source; and that nearly everything (and certainly anything in any way evaluative) should be cited to a source unconnected with the subject.
So, looking at the beginning of your draft:
  • "BlackBeltHelp is an international Contact Center outsourcing company headquartered in downtown Cleveland, Ohio, USA". This is unreferenced and should be removed or cited to a published source. Because it is (presumably) uncontroversial factual information, it is acceptable to cite this to a non-independent source such as the company's website.
  • "The company is best known for its IT help desk and student services call center solutions,..." This is evaluative, and must be cited to an independent published source which explicitly says that that is what it is best known for; if one cannot be found, then the statement must be removed.
  • The word "solutions" is meaningless marketing puff, and is almost never appropriate for a Wikipedia article.
  • "which as of 2015 have been provided to 200+ Higher Education institutions by BlackBeltHelp." is a promotional claim, which must be cited to an independent source which says it explicitly (that BBH has provided services to more than 200 institutions). A non-independent source is not acceptable (companies have been known to exaggerate their customer base).
and so on. Not a single statement is individually cited to a source: please see Referencing for beginners for how to do this. It's probably OK to list the major products (though they still need to be cited to a published source) but it shouldn't say anything about them that does not come from an independent review or other writing about them.
My advice to you would be that, after carefully reading your first article, WP:CORP and WP:COI, you find several published sources unconnected with the company, and then throw away everything you have written and start again, using only information in those sources, and being careful not to add any information, and especially any evaluative language, that is not in them. If after that you have a substantial article, you may add a little factual information from cited to the company's own publications.
Finally, I'm afraid that your username is invalid under Wikipedia's rules: a username must not suggest that the account is editing on behalf of an organisation. Since you have made very few edits, it is easiest just to abandon that account and start a new one with a name which does not suggest that you are editing on behalf of an organisation; alternatively you can go to changing username. --ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Rerouting Pages

Hello users of Wikipedia! Small question: I was wondering if someone could help me in learning how to redirect a page to a different one. I have currently begun translating a page in Spanish that I just found out is available in English already & was given this #REDIRECT [[pancake]] to work with. Thank You!

CoolInu43 (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's all it needs to act as a redirect. I've deleted the rest of the text from Tortita, and it now redirects simply to Pancake. - --David Biddulph (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

What does "Blacklisted" mean?

I have been working with a professional wiki writer to create a wikipage for our company. The writer drafted a page online and submitted it for comment. He was told by the Wikipedia staff that "we are blacklisted and no further page can be created". We have tried several times to create pages which were decline due to Neutral voice issues, but our most recent submission resolved all of that.

I am completely confused since we are a standard company like the thousands of other companies that each gave wiki pages. We make IT solutions, are a well known private company, etc.

What should I do? Markharris2000 (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Markharris2000, and Welcome to the Teahouse. One thing you should do is not attempt to use Wikipedia as an promotional platform for your company . You have a conflict of interest that apparently blinds you to advertorial phrasing like " the innovation and economics " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Correct. Those earlier attempts were done by several people that did not understand this non-commercial concept.
Since those early attempt, I hired a professional team to write an information-only

version of what we do and who should care. What I am confused by is that team has indicated that someone at Wikipedia staff indicates that we are blacklisted and can NOT even TRY to write a page that conforms to all of wiki's guidelines.

I am still confused.
Markharris2000 (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Markharris2000, There is no "Wikipedia staff" (only volunteers) and any "professional wiki writer" should know that. I can't find any place where this term has been used on Wikipedia in reference to you or your firm. The term could have two meanings in regard to Wikipedia editing. First, a source site or domain can be blacklisted. This means that it is added to a list, and the software will not accept any edits with links to that site. This is done in regard to spam sites and notoriously unreliable sources that might be mistaken for reliable sources. Neither seems likely to apply to you. ee Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. The other is what is more commonly known as "salting" (as in "sow the earth with salt"). If an invalid article is created and deleted multiple time, it may be creation-protected, so that only admins can create a page with that title again. I don't see any indication that this was done for any title associated with you or your firm. I would like to ask your "professional wiki writer" who exactly said this, and where, with diffs. I would also like to know the user name of this "professional wiki writer" to be sure that this person is complying with the terms of service. DES (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
There's certainly context that is sorely lacking. Another possibility, is that this regarded the writing company being blacklisted. For example, as part of the Orangemoody sockpuppet case. It is actually possible that Wikimedia staff could have corresponded, though it's more likely it was a volunteer.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Ahh, the mainspace has been salted Pluribus Networks, which is effectively "blacklisted." I don't know if that was because of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pluribus Networks (seems rather aggressive after only 1 recreation although it was created by another self admitted COI editor User:Pbgalvin) or one of the paid editing scandals with Orangemoody or Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia or similar. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
If Draft:Pluribus Networks were ever brought to a condition where it was acceptable as a Wikipedia article (specifically, not containing promotional wording or content, and also meeting the requirements of Wikipedia:VRS), then the accepting reviewer would seek unprotection ("unsalting") of the article name Pluribus Networks so that the accepted Draft could be moved there and become an article. Salting is not necessarily forever, just like Carthage#Roman Carthage became the second largest city of the empire even despite the supposed former salting of the city. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Translated german article

Hi There,

we would like to create an article about a german guitarist. It's a simple translation from german to englisch. Nothing changed so far, except ob missing links to other articles.

But the draft was not accepted.

"This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people 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."

The german article is about "Reentko"

Thanks in advance

Niceland studio (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Niceland studio, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've taken a look at Draft:Reentko. The relevant policy guideline here is Wikipedia:Notability. The notability requirement can be summarised as meaning that articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. It may well be the case that this is applied less strictly on the German Wikipedia, or just that the German article has slipped through the net there and not yet been flagged for notability concerns. Anyway, what you need to do is demonstrate that Reentko has been the subject of significant coverage in third-party sources such as newspaper articles or books. I've looked through the sources cited in the current draft, and there are some problems. YouTube isn't really considered a reliable source unless the video in question is posted by a reliable publisher rather than just a regular user. The Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing source states that is a mirror of something from the World Heritage Encyclopedia, which itself incorporates material from Wikipedia, which means that it isn't reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Niceland Studio! I'm afraid you are trying to do something that can't be done. You are here to promote your artist, and Wikipedia does not allow promotion of any kind, so I think your attempt is (or at least, should be) doomed to failure. Your best option is to wait until someone not connected with Reentko thinks he is interesting and important enough to have an article here. Some other things you should be aware of:
I'm afraid that's a lot of reading and a lot of "rules". Please don't allow any of it to discourage you from contributing here – we have four million articles, and many of them need improvement. But for artists connected with your studio, please refrain from editing articles directly; you are always welcome to propose changes on the article talk page. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Editing a Declined Draft

Hello, I recently had a Submission rejected due to incorrect usage of Footnotes. When I click on the Edit link to edit the references there is nothing there to edit. Additionally, there is no Edit link to edit the main body text so I can re-do (or delete) those footnote links to the Footnote References. Lastly, I thought *some* footnotes were to be used to substantiate a claim(s) made in the main body of text. Perhaps I'm a little confused and am placing these in the wrong category. My draft can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joe_Schimmel#cite_ref-1

Thanks for any help you can provide. Everything that my client has asked me to provide is there, I just need to complete whatever needs to be cleaned up and fixed before my Submission will be accepted.

Palacenewmedia (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it and see if I can help. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi PalaceNewMedia, I understand you are new to Wikipedia (WP) and it takes time to understand the WP guidelines and culture. For this reason you have misunderstood the comments from the reviewer. There isn't anything wrong with the formatting of the citations/footnotes but rather the quality and substance of the sources cited in those footnotes. They are not acceptable sources per WP standards (WP:RS) and the article you have written does not meet the standard of WP:notability. Unless the subject has been covered in depth by notable publications its very unlikely any article on them will be accepted for publication on WP. Sorry to bring you this news but that is the reality of the situation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Also the content and tone of the draft wreaks of self-promotion. In case you are able to find acceptable sources to meet WP:notability the draft will need to be completely rewritten to be much more succinct (shorter) and to have much more a dis-interested tone.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Palacenewmedia, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am going to address several of your concerns.

First, it is normal for the references not to be editable under the references section when editing an article. Each reference's details are at the place (or at least a place) where that source is cited in the article. So you need to edit the body of the text to correct footnote formatting, even though the references display in their own separate section in article view.

Second, "[e]verything that [your] client has asked [you] to provide" may not necessarily be able to remain in the article. As currently written, the article is heavily promotional (even if some of it is promoting a particular variation of Christianity rather than Schimmel himself) and will not be accepted until the tone is much more neutral. I have not removed much of this promotional language, because taking all of it out would require severe pruning of the article and I wanted to give you the opportunity to try doing that yourself.

The note left by MatthewVanitas when he declined the draft is very important. If a subject (whether a place, thing or idea, or a person like Mr. Schimmel) is not "notable" by the Wikipedia definition, then no amount of formatting references or listing accomplishments will permit the draft to be approved as an article. Every article on Wikipedia is held to the notability standard.

To get you started on finding independent publications by reliable sources that make more than a mere mention of Mr. Schimmel, I have found and added two sources to the article. Neither of them is sufficient on its own to establish his notability, nor would they suffice taken together. But they should hopefully point you in the right direction. You should ideally find two to three sources that discuss Mr. Schimmel or his work for at least a few paragraphs. Remember that the sources for establishing notability cannot be connected with him, such as someone he has worked with or a publisher of his work. As always, feel free to come back to the Teahouse if you have any further questions. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 19:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I think I am starting to understand most of what is going on. I am simply attempting to add information in the same way that, say, the following person has been added on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Hunt_(Christian_apologist). Mr. Schimmel falls into almost the exact same category, and yet there seems to be no problem with Dave Hunt being acceptable. Any other suggestions would be helpful. If I need to remove several sentences, references, External Links, etc., I am happy to do so in order to make the article acceptable. Also, I am a COI non-paid contributor, so do I need to place this code at the beginning of my article and/or anywhere else?

Palacenewmedia (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Palacenewmedia - I'm not that confident about the Dave Hunt article, its referencing looks rather thin to me. Take a look at its talk page, there's been some pretty hard discussion about the article. It also is only rated "Start class" so probably not a good idea to use it as a benchmark, in fact comparing articles is generally a bad idea, because there is a lot of junk on Wikipedia that has not been pruned or culled yet. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

My article got rejected because it doesn't fit the notability requirements but I think it does!

My article submission for Martial Arts Unlimited Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Martial_Arts_Unlimited_Association because it doesn't meet the notability requirements. I have lots of sources and have cited several parts of the article. What do I need to do? Lkirkpatrick89 (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

To cut and paste from the rejection note on the top:
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. (emphasis added)
Basically, you want multiple mentions of MAUA in national newspapers or martial arts mags. These may be Japanese. That establishes notability. For example, that Brazilian JJ article in the Black Belt mag would be perfect if it mentioned MAUA, but it doesn't. As it stands, that's a junk cite, as it doesn't help anyone reading the article confirm anything (other than the existence of BJJ, I suppose, which is covered by the wikilink to its own article). Bromley86 (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Just saw your AJ wip, and that's going to suffer from the same problem. Every statement needs to be supported by a reliable source and it also needs to be neutral (so no "desiring a fast paced life", etc.). Bromley86 (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@Lkirkpatrick89: There are many links, but press releases or pages of co-partners or wiki pages are not the reliably published independent sources that are required. see WP:RS-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Formatting Guidlines

Hello fellow tea drinkers.

At each of the bus and bus-train interchanges around the Australian city of Perth, there is a list of connecting bus routes. When the format for the table was originally established a few years ago by a particular user, |the destination and the route number were always written in bold. However, in recent months, some experienced users have edited some pages so that |there is no bold in the table. I think that the bold should remain, as it makes the table look more visually appealing and draws readers' eye to the final destination (the most important piece of information). My question is, does a Wikipedia policy or guideline exist that suggests that the bold should be removed, or is this just the personal opinion of a few experienced editors (in which case I will alert other users of my intention to edit the formatting so that they have a chance to respond and we can reach a consensus).

I know I'm being a bit pedantic and very long winded on such a trivial matter. Thank you in advance for your help.

102 at 1625 (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia house style is described at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Boldface. --Boson (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

true facts being removed

How do I get information on here to stay when I know them to be fact, and they are being removed over and over again.70.39.17.158 (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. On Wikipedia, all additions must be cited to a reliable source. Even if you know something to be true, Wikipedia will not accept it unless you find a reliable citation for it. We have this policy so that each person will not be inserting their own unsourced version of "truth". --Biblioworm 15:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
True facts, you say? If you could let us know what the material you are trying to add is, and to which article(s), it will be easier to give you advice. According to your contributions history, this post is the only one you have made from this IP address, so I presume that you either have an account but are not logged it, or have a dynamic IP? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
As an example of what the others say, I've edited a biography page where someone I'm 99% sure really was a relative maintained that the newspapers had got the chap's place of birth wrong (i.e. papers say Scotland, person says Kenya). Given where his parents lived at the time, Kenya makes a lot more sense but, because we have multiple newspaper article which all say it's Scotland, it stays as Scotland. Bromley86 (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to add an external link to a web page and it keeps giving me a warning dialog "Your edit has triggered a filter designed to warn editors, organisations and companies against using Wikipedia as an advertising medium."

The page I'm trying to add a link to is not a commercial page and has content not in wikipedia.

I can't find a way past this error dialog. What can I do? Unixnerd (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Unixnerd: - Wikipedia is not a link farm. The criteria for appropriate external links are pretty limited. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The link I'm trying to add is just as valid as the others already on the page. The site the link goes to has been running for almost 20 years and is non-commercial. It has been used as a reference on other Wikipedia articles for years.

Unixnerd (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If the link really has information relevant to the article in question, then some of that information should be cited in the article, and the link cited as a reference. Without knowing which article you're trying to edit nor which url you're trying to add, however, I can't evaluate whether it would in fact be an appropriate reference by the standard Wikipedia uses. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 11:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
that there may be other inappropriate links does not mean that one more inappropriate link should be added. Does the link you wish to add meet the criteria for appropriate external links? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
This user has been FORUMSHOPPING and has been warned about COI and Username policy at WP:Help desk#Trouble linking an external web page - Arjayay (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

how to protect a page from edits

how to protect a company page 65.175.243.206 (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP user at 65.175.243.206, and welcome to the Teahouse. If a page is vandalized on a recurrent basis, an administrator may place it under what's called "semi-protection", meaning that only logged-in and auto-confirmed users can edit it.
You should understand, however, that a company about which a Wikipedia article exists does not "own" that article and has very little say over what information is included in it. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources report about a topic. So, if a newspaper publishes information unflattering to a company, that information will probably go into its Wikipedia article even if the company doesn't like it. Similarly, flattering information about a company cannot be included in the Wikipedia article unless a reliable, independent source verifies the information — we can't just take a company's word for it that they have a million customers or won a particular award, for example. I hope this addresses your question. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 19:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello IP user at 65.175.243.206. Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site, companies are not permitted to "host" pages on Wikipedia. Pages are only to be protected (have the ability to edit them restricted) to prevent vandalism (deliberately decreasing a page's quality), edit warring (otherwise helpful editors continuously reverting each other), and disuptive or otheriwse problematic editing. Page protection is done to prevent damage or disruption to pages, not to restrict access based on an editor's opinions. A relevant policy to this is the neutral point of view, meaning that Wikipedia presents information without taking sides. For future reference, page protection can be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Feel free to ask if you have any more questions. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 19:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_397&oldid=685314058"