Help desk
< January 3	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

January 4

Header Tags

Ron Wyatt

What templates would you suggest applying to this article in hopes that editors could create a better article that meets WP standards in that the lede itself is basically stating facts / claims (summarized without citations) that are not then covered within the article and backed by reliable sources and equal in weight to POV? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed additions to the lead made in November, which were as you say "undue weight" and mostly not supported in the body of the article: Noyster (talk), 13:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maineartists: For future reference, there's a list of templates relating to the lead at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Introduction. 'Inadequate' and 'rewrite' may have been the more useful ones. Eagleash (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Noyster. That now reads much more appropriate and without agenda; and as usual: Eagleash, invaluable as always. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The multiplication table pattern section violate my copyright & IP in US.

Editor blocked per WP:NLT

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright mentioned, we've issued copyright for multiplication table in US. The method and tool is developed by my daughter and me. Please check the http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20150064667.pdf.

The author of this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication_table) publish it without even asking. Please help remove "Patterns in the tables" section in that page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benson tan at work (talk • contribs) 14:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Patterns in tables" in a circular format seems to have been in the article since 2008[1] - 7 years before you applied for a patent. Is that what you're referring to? Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In 1978, I already knew some pattern when learning multiplication table, such as, "24680" or "987654321" for <10 digit. It is just a part of the puzzle. Although I felt it was fun and could remember it in 1 or 2 days while playing toys, I still have to remember it as others.

My first version of this invention came out in 2007 when I worked in Seagull Scientific. It is okay to use 2008's version in the wiki page as it does not "group" the "carrier" correctly as well as I did not file the patent that time. I have issues for the 2017's picture which is very similar as our IP in 2014. The invention, however is the whole solution for the puzzle, it makes children no need to remember any multiplication item in times table.

We've used transformed 1st circle to indicate the total carriers (as 2017's picture marked the 1st digit differently), and then ask children to find the 3 group of lines with sum up as total carriers (so, straight line is different than curve line). The 2nd rule is it always carries when hit zero. With this 2 rules, they can not only remember the <10 digit from the shift position, but also count the teen numbers. So, children do not need to remember any other complex rules to come out the result.

In short, if you use the content as what in 2008, I don't have problem (which just a partial solution of the puzzle). But, the picture in 2017 is the issue. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benson tan at work (talk • contribs) 14:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now you seem to be suggesting that we knowingly include inaccurate and false information in an encyclopedia. Surely you can see that that isn't going to happen. It's still difficult to see exactly what you're complaining about - is it the File:Multiplication mnemonic 7.svg image that is on the page, or the process outlined in the rest of the article that you claim to have invented and patented? While you do link to a patent application this was filed in 2015, which as I pointed out is many years after the introduction of the process to Wikipedia. You say that you invented the process earlier, but there's no evidence to back this up. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you need evidence, I still have the flash file on my hand as well as witness from Seagull Scientific. For the content, you can use 2008's content, but no mnemonic 7.svg. You can describe < 10 digit, but no for "grouping/differentiate the connections" for teen digit. For example, as multiplicand is 9, 9 is carried every lines instead of carry from switch rows (as described in 2008's content as for 7, that is switch row as carrier does not apply for 9; which is okay). In your 2017 image, you use "curve" line to differentiate the straight line; which is the problem. In prior work, many content describes the < 10 digits' rules, but no one describes the pattern of the teens. They are not a complete solution. Thanks.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benson tan at work (talk • contribs) 16:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is discussion of this problem, together with what looks very close to a threat of legal action on the talk page of the article. If we have copied a diagram that is published by you, and not by anyone else, then we take copyright very seriously, and will remove that diagram (just point us to the book in which it is published), but so many people have observed these patterns that I fail to see how the method could ever be patented. Dbfirs 18:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Chinese name is Yu-Cheng Tan which is the 2nd author in the patent (see above pdf). It seems like I have to spend another set of money to fight my right. It's so bad for IP system for poor people as us. How to ask my lawyer to contact you guys? In addition, if the result is impact my right, I will ask your page hits multiply by $10 for each then. My daughter, who provided many feedback for me adjust the tool, also published this in her elementary school science competition in 2014 (after IP filed). Anyway, it's 2:35am in Taiwan, and yes English is not 1st language. "it seems just as likely that others had come up with it as well" -- if this is the reason to publish my outcome, you need to provide evidence as well. My patent is approved by US, Taiwan and China governments. Also, my copyright is issued in US. Therefore, before you say something or publish something, you can refer IP database to see if those were published by others. Further more, even so, it is not YOU can publish as well. As copyright and IP tips, if you invented it, you have to issue an IP to protect your right. Unless you are the owner of an IP prior to my IP, you can not say it is you invented earlier including the file / page history (those are just reference, not legal document). For copyright is another story, people who writes something has the copyright by nature. But, you need to provide evidence (with "legal date") as "You" are the author. That is why we issued the copyright through lawyer. In addition, content is another important thing in copyright. You cannot copy a full sentence from others' published document. For picture, it is obviously could be determined (that is why we issue copyright as IP fee grows every year). I don't know if you feel rude or not, I dislike you still publish the picture while we already have argus. Anyway, maybe you own wiki, it looks to me that you play as player and goalkeeper both roles, and it makes me feel unfair. I had lived in US for 7 years, some people are nice but some don't.

For publish, please refer the pdf link I posted (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20150064667.pdf). You can always say "I've draw/seen this before; or many people have observed these patterns that I fail to see how the method could ever be patented", but please provide "LEGAL DOCUMENT", not *think*, nor *wiki history*. The content in the PDF is a legal document approved by US government.

Please check Fig 6, [0030] - [0048], [0052], [0053], [0054], [0055].

If you want, I can also provide legal document approved by Taiwan government; which me live in., or China government; who provided 8x9 multiplication table from archeology. [redacted]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benson tan at work (talk • contribs) 19:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked up the corresponding Patent Application, 14/016138 (file-date: September 2, 2013) at the US Patent Office, their portal shows the following result: Abandoned: Failure to Respond to an Office Action dated June 6, 2016. So, no US patent on this multiplication table exists. It would also seem to me that the possible US copyright would only possibly date to 2013 when the application was filed, in addition the public publishing of this table & its method dates to March 2015. If anything, after looking at the article and its talk page, it appears that WIkipedia's Commons CC-BY-SA licensing has perhaps been breached since a form of the table had already been present on WP's pages since 2004... Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Our patent is approved in 2014 and we are not affordable for paying patent fees because we are poor. The only left we have is the copyright which we don't need to pay until we die. Again, it is invented by us, not you or your company. Do you feel proud of copy someone's effort without a name? My daughter who was born in US still need it as college fund. What's the spirit of Wikipedia as a set of copies? After 8 years effort tried more than 100 children and finally got patented, we do make the education tool kit and sell to few people. My daughter also had taught it in elementary school when she was 6th grade. Although I don't rely on it for living, it is a hope for my kid for studying in US. Yes, you people can rude us with Wikipedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benson tan at work (talk • contribs) 20:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Agree with Dbfirs that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously but Benson tan at work, I feel compelled to point out that you have claimed above that you

have a patent approved by the US gov (which is not true) and
the dates of the filing/s prove your copyright status (but the WP article & a multiplication table existed before your filing/s existed and even before your claimed date of 2007).

You are correct that once a work is created, let's say committed to paper then that act itself is a copyright. And the table has existed in one form or another on Wikipedia's pages since 2004 so Wikipedia would seem to perhaps hold the actual copyright... The FAQ at Wikipedia and fair use seems salient to this discussion especially since China & Taiwan laws have been mentioned in your posts: "Wikipedia is subject to US copyright law in this matter and may not host material which infringes US copyright law", so US copyright law applies." Shearonink (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a threat at WP:ANI for the legal threats. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: English is not my mother tongue, but ...possibly you meant a thread about threats...? --CiaPan (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thread not threat. They're now blocked, so I'm going to hat this thread, as this isn't what the Help desk is for. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mouseover pop-ups

I noticed that on many Wikipedias (e.g. the French, German, ...) links have a mouseover pop-up. Why does this not appear on the English version? I tried creating an account and enabling the Gadget for pop-ups but this brings up a different pop-up (with messy details about page views and stuff). Is it possible to enable the simple pop-up which seems the default on most language versions into the English version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.240.102 (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feature at other wikis is "Page previews" (also called Hovercards) at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering for registered users at the English Wikipedia. See mw:Page Previews. It may be enabled later here by default. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a link to the Women Classical Pianists

Hi helpdesk,

Would like to add 2 pianists to the Women classical pianists page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_classical_pianists but I can't do it myself since the formatting is too difficult for me. Could you add it for me? Güher and Süher Pekinel should be added to the P section, since they're missing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pekinel_sisters

Thanks and Kind Regards. Cleyntje (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cleyntje:

Done. The category is added to the article rather than the other way around. The category now includes the article. Eagleash (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Military service infobox

Is there an infobox that exists where you can add military service information (allegiance, branch, battles, etc.) to a non-military person's article?

I.e. Someone was a musician (Robert Mann) but also happened to be a WWII veteran. In this case, the person is not primarily known for being a war hero, but it is still relevant information to have in their infobox to note that they are/were a veteran and actively participated in a major war.

By using "Infobox academic" or "Infobox musician" you can get the relevant musical achievements to display, but not military info. Conversely, by using the "Infobox officeholder" or "Infobox military person" it then omits all the other relevant info to a musician or academic.

Is there one that can combine both that maybe I am not aware of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16:05, 4 January 2018‎ Gysousouris (talk • contribs)

Use the module field of Infobox person, and put the military history infobox in that field. See instructions at Template:Infobox person - Other infoboxes may have the same feature. - X201 (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you X201 that is helpful

Millions of people have done military service, Gysousouris. The article mentions that he was drafted into the army, but unless something about his service is independently notable (i.e. has been written about in a secondary, reliably published source), it doesn't seem to me that such an infobox would be appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine, yes it is a tricky subject, and one that I'm not sure has a clear answer. Robert Mann was just one possible example, and perhaps his service wouldn't be specifically notable. There are many others, however, and I'd assume each would need to be evaluated on a case by base basis, consistent with this statement regarding infoboxes: "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Paul F. Evans, for example, has nothing about his military service noted in the infobox, but the article mentions he served nearly a year in combat in Vietnam in one of the major battles of the war. If his military service/experience was a stepping stone to his career as Commissioner of the Boston Police Department, I think it would be worth including.

Isaac Newton's correct birth date contradiction

— Preceding unsigned comment added by David Lee Pahlka (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Lee Pahlka: Please clarify exactly what your question is. In the infobox (to the right of the Isaac Newton page), there is a link to Old Style and New Style dates which may explain any anomaly you are seeing. If you are looking at the results of a Google search, as here, Google often render information in such a way that implies it comes from Wikipedia, but 'we' do not have any control over what they display. There is a feedback link at the bottom of the panel in the search results. Please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"No Labels" policy or guideline

Last week, I was reading a part of the Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and I bumb into a piece that was stating that editors should avoid using labels. ("No labels" was the heading). But I can't recall where I read it. Do you fellow wikipedians know were is it hiden? Thank you. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Τζερόνυμο, I believe you are looking for WP:LABEL. If you are looking for policies or guidelines when searching add WP: in front of your search term. NZFC^(talk) 22:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you NZFC, that was what I was looking for! You are fast! Τζερόνυμο (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]