Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 480

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 475←Archive 478Archive 479Archive 480Archive 481Archive 482→Archive 485

Page blank and redirected

I just created an article but it was redirected and deleted to another page. How can I review my page and repost? LittleHelper8 (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, LittleHelper8. As you say, Bolloré Logistics was changed by SwisterTwister to a redirect to Bolloré. You can find your version by picking the link where it says "(Redirected from Bolloré Logistics)" at the top, then picking "History". Please do not just reinstate your version, but rather discuss with TwisterSister whether it merits a separate article or not. --ColinFine (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I have reinstated the article after deleting a paragraph that might have been thought of as too promotional. I hope it is fine now. LittleHelper8 (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The recreated article is not "fine", it provides no evidence that "Bolloré Logistics" is notable. Its references show that it exists, and that it has received various insignificant awards from its business partners, but there is no reason to believe that it warrants a separate article. It should either be deleted or merged into Bolloré. Maproom (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Agree, and have reverted back, and given the user advice on their talkpage. Also asked for semi-protection of this redirect to prevent the edit war. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the proper way to reference an out-of-print book that may not be accessible online for a link?

I want to do this in the way that has already been worked out - IOW, this can't be the first time this issue has arisen, but I haven't seen the protocol.Iceteroid (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Assuming you are using the standard toolbar - Under "Templates" in the "Cite" option is "cite book" - Alternatively you should see Template:Cite book. Although cite book is more complex, it does explain what each of the parameters are, and what should be included. - Arjayay (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Iceteroid, if the book was issued by a reputable publisher it doesn't matter at all if it is out of print or if you can't link to it (though it can sometimes be helpful to other editors if there is a link); you can cite it in whatever way you are used to and comfortable with. There's no need to use templates unless you want to; your citation should end up looking something like:

Author (year). Title. Place: Publisher. ISBN 0000000000. Page 00.

though there's plenty of room for variation on that theme. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me get this straight. Wikipedia has been my primary first-read resource since its inception. Glad to be a User, Supporter, and now Contributor.Iceteroid (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Notability for books and authors

Is it possible for a book to be notable but not it's author?*Treker (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This is particularly possible in the case of old books whose authors are known only for their authorship of a single book - or may not be known at all, see List of anonymously published works. In the present day it could be that a book becomes a bestseller but the author maintains a low public profile by not giving interviews to the press or other self-promotional activity. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Creating articles

What type of articles can I create On wiki and What should be the content in that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shambhuraje ghogare (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 May 2016‎ (UTC)

Hello, Shamburaje ghogare, and welcome to the Teahouse. My first response to your question is to ask, what is your hurry in creating articles? Creating a new article is one of the hardest jobs on Wikipedia: why not apply your energies to improving some of our existing five million articles (many of them need a great deal of improvement). This will also give you a chance to learn how Wikipedia works and how best to edit it.
If you do decide to create a new article, the most important thing is what we call Notability: this doesn't mean quite the same as it does in the real world. Put simply, you need to be able to write the article based almost 100% on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it in reliable places. If you cannot find such independent sources, then there is no point in trying to write an article. Please read your first article for information about this and other topics, including how to use the articles for creation process to create a draft to work on. --ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi Shambhuraje ghogare. That is a very wide questions. The very short, triaged answer is only articles on topics that do not have existing articles and are notable. That means in turn that after you have searched that an article does not already exist, you would perform searches (such as using Google Books and Google News) for reliable, secondary and independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail—say at least two paragraphs dedicated to it—and only then consider writing an article. For the balance of your question, I think your best bet is to explore Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia and Wikipedia:your first article, and if you have more narrow questions after doing so, to return here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

Why I cannot edit the article on frame-dragging, which is a subject I have and I am actively contributing to?

I am Lorenzo Iorio, a physicist working in general relativity and gravitation. As such, I have published so far dozens of articles in many different peer-reviewed international journals, which are gaining lots of citations (look at the freely available databasa SAO/NASA-ADS). Why some adminsitrators which manifestly are incompetent to judge on them (one is a retired electrical engineer and the other one is a..broker), vandalized the article devoted to frame-dragging by removing solely my references? One of them has even blocked me from editing that article page!L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You can edit the page, nothing is stopping you. You were advised by Spinningspark that editors with a WP:conflict of interest should not be directly editing articles that intersect with their conflict of interest. When you add references to your own research it appears that you are pushing your own research. -- GB fan 16:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D.. I have read what you have written in several places, and much of what you say is quite persuasive. Since I have no formal physics training, I will refrain from commenting on the technical aspects. However, I encourage you to realize that this is a collaborative project, that anyone can edit any unprotected article, and that you are expected to assume good faith of other editors. Adopting an indignant and combative attitude simply does not work well on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
1) An administrator blocked me from editing the article page: I cannot edit it
2) Well, all other encyclopedias in the world usually invite researchers active in a field to write articles on it: in wikipedia it is the contrary; they are banned to do so and are called sockpuppets! Quite ridicolous!
4) Simply, Spinningspark and the other guy (a financial broker!!) do not have any competence to destroy articles in those way without any discussions with other people by abusing of their powers, or to judge if my papers are mainstream or not, if my positions are minority or not, if my peer-reviewed articles, highly cited are pertinent or not! L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I am still blocked to edit the article page by the administrator who is a financial broker..L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The reason your user page has been nominated for deletion is explained at User talk:L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D.#Speedy deletion nomination of User:L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D.. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
It did not explain absolutely anything. It should have said plain and explicitly what was wrong and how to correct it.
I need to clarify one point after looking a little deeper. The article has been protected so that only editors that have account over 4 days old and with at least 10 edits can edit it. Your account is too new to edit the article. I also removed the speedy deletion tag from your userpage as it was not a valid use of the tag. -- GB fan 16:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for your clarification. But, please, look at the 'motivations' provided by the financial broker, and also at his previous vandalizing actions on that article. Now, I have published 190 peer-reviewed articles which has gained more than 2600 non-self citations, and a financial broker must remove them from an article on a topic which I contributed to build? Or must he ban me because of 'sockpuppetry'? Are all joking here, folks? Really? Is this an encyclopedia, or is it a KGBpedia where the only thing administrator can do is screaming 'sockpuppet, sockpuppet, sockpuppet!!' exposing them?? L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
You are not doing yourself any good and are doing yourself considerable harm by insulting administrators. You are setting yourself up for a real block (as opposed to semi-protection) if you continue your ranting; see the boomerang essay. If you think that your edits are mainstream, as opposed to fringe physics, I suggest that you ask for the opinions of other physicists at WP:WikiProject Physics. Just ranting won't help. Just insulting admins won't help. Your comments on sockpuppetry, when no one has suggested that you or anyone else is a sockpuppet, won't help, and just make you look like you are ranting. Try to discuss rather than ranting. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
By the way, I think that indefinite semi-protection is an over-reaction. Can it be shortened to, say, four days, after which he will be auto-confirmed anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions about WP:WikiProject Physics. But, in practice, how can I request their assistance on this matter? Is there a link/page like this to ask questions about pages? Please, let me know. Thank you. L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Ask at the talk page, WT:WikiProject Physics. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection is not an over-reaction. This article has been subject of COI editing and socking for years. There is a long, long history. Mr. Iorio is welcome to edit, especially with an account that clearly identifies himself. This is good for transparency. As others have said above, he should avoid linking to his own work, as that appears to be promotional. If he wants to suggest linking (referencing) his own work via the talk page and allows another editor to add the reference, that is permitted. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 18:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Crystal Taliefero

Hello I am crystal l Taliefero The photo that you have posted of me is not a fair representation of only crystal Taliefero and it should only be about crystal l Taliefero and no one else. Here is a photo I want to represent my image and likes. Thank you image1.jpeg

Sent from my iPhone

You will need to upload the video. See WP:Upload. Also make sure that you own the copyright, or that the copyright is released. See WP:Copyright. Then it is an editorial decision which picture to use.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC).
I think the existing photo is quite good. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be in order for an Admin to expunge this as Crystal has inadvertently revealed her IP address? Regards,   Aloha27  talk  19:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thank you.   Aloha27  talk  21:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Would like to understand better what constitutes a reliable source

My recent edits to Paul Caplin were rejected because the British Sunday Times newspaper and the MusicBrainz database are apparently not reliable sources.

I thought that they would be considered authoritative since one is a major newspaper of record and the other is a moderated music database used as a primary reference by the BBC.

I cited both MuscBrainz and the artist's own website as evidence of release of two music albums, both of which are still widely available. If these sources are not believed as evidence of this, what kind of source would be?

Confused and grateful for any guidance.

Creativecontroller (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Creativecontroller. The MusicBrainz page that you cited is clearly a mirror of the Wikipedia article Zeeteah Massiah, and so shouldn't be used per WP:CIRCULAR. I don't really see the problem with the Sunday Times source. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Jytdog, who made the reverts. Can I ask what is wrong with that source, Jytdog? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
First this user is a blatant SOCK/MEAT that has a COI but what the heck I will answer. I see you identified musicbrainz as a wiki that copies from WP so it is out per SPS/wiki and CIRCULAR. Where do you see a cite to the Sunday Times in this this dif? Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
There are two references to the ST Tech Track 100 in that edit, Jytdog. This is one of them, if you want to check. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Here is my thinking: The two Sunday Times sources are annual lists of 100 tech companies. In effect, it is a passing mention in the form of a directory listing without any significant coverage. And the subject of the list is a company that Caplin founded but no longer owns. It says nothing about Caplin himself. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
He owned it at the time that the sources were published, though, and the coverage doesn't need to be extensive to be considered reliable. Looking at Creativecontroller's contribution history, there does appear to be a conflict of interest here, however. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh crap! I missed it that the Tech Track 100 is put out by the Sunday Times. My bad 100%. I will fix that. Sorry. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

How can I change an incorrect Wiki page name?

Our business name is The College Basketball Experience. How can I get the "The" added to the page name, so it's not listed as "College Basketball Experience," which is incorrect?

Cl3314 (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cl3314. This entirely unreferenced article has been tagged for speedy deletion. You need to deal with that issue first, and I suggest that you start by reading Your first article. Whether to include "The" in a title is discussed at WP:THE. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Cl3314. Another welcome to the Teahouse. Certainly TCBE has gotten a lot of mainstream press in reliable sources over the past nine years? Because on Wikipedia notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, the article will be fine. But, it would behoove you to bring forward some of those sources so the notability is not again challenged. Cheers! (cc to Cullen328)
I have also created a redirect page so readers can land on TCBE by using The College Basketball Experience as their portal. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello!

I am new to all of this and a page I had a hand in creating/editing is now under review for copyright. However, I supplied updated text and the copyright issues have not resolved (including through deleting the parts that are supposedly infringing.) It has been well over a week and I am just wondering how to move forward. Shunterr2p (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be useful to know if the "supposedly infringing" text was actually infringing.
For example this report shows a lot of unattributed common text.
If you own the copyright to the text that has been copied, then you can release that text, using the WP:OTRS system, and resolve the issue that way.
If not, then the cleaned up article can have the tags removed, and the "temp" version should be deleted. If, however, the remaining text included un-attributed copy-paste then that should also be dealt with.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC).

There was no unattributed copy and paste. I think whomever flagged it was because the wording is similar. Unfortunately with the subject matter, there is only a few ways to word things. I cannot seem to even get at the text that is causing the issue (I do not see where I can actually edit it). The page is the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Feel free to take a look. thanks for your guidance. Shunterr2p (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Shunterr2p, Rich Farmbrough, the bulk of the copyright violation identified at Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect has already been (correctly) removed by Wiae; the rest of the article will need to be checked. Shunterr2p, whether or not it was unattributed makes no difference – if it's copied from a copyright source, it's a copyright violation. Please see this comparison to see at least part of the problem.
Material was copy-pasted into the draft version of the article by Harry.murphycruise, who also appears to have a fairly evident conflict of interest in relation to that topic and to have created that page to WP:PROMOTE the centre. This seems to be as good a place as any for a plea to all AfC reviewers, 333-blue among them, to check thoroughly for copyvio before accepting submissions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I linked to a report showing some of the copied pieces of text for example:
international advisory board provides advice on strategy policy and management its members include policymakers diplomats and academics as well as leaders from the international human rights community
Any method that leaves 27 words in a row unchanged is as near copy-paste as makes no difference. It also runs the risk of being a "close-paraphrase" which can be a copyright violation, at least theoretically - or constituting plagiarism.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC).

How do I use template for citing liner notes?

Hello! I can't figure out how to use the template on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_AV_media_notes when i copy & paste it into the source edit page in my sandbox,& fill in the blanks, it just shows up as text, like this: (Media notes). {{cite AV media notes}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

If you look in my sandbox, you can see it in the section "Career & Associates"

Thank you very much!Nadnie (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nadnie. You had surrounded the template with nowiki tags instead of ref tags. I have corrected that for you. Nowiki tags are intended to display the raw wikicode for learning purposes. Ref tags must be used for a template to function as an actual working template creating an inline reference. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you create wiki page

Can you create your own wiki page, not just the user talk page, or can you only contribute to the wiki communityFreshies203 (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Freshies203. What do you mean by "your own wiki page"? Do you mean a Wikipedia article about yourself, or a user page such as the one you have already created at User:Freshies203? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I mean can I create a page about somethingFreshies203 (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you can, Freshies203, if the topic is notable, as demonstrated by multiple reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Your first article for instructions. However, it might be a better idea to get some experience editing existing articles before you try to start a new one. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest using the Articles for Creation process to have your drafts reviewed if you do choose to try to create a page. However, bear in mind that creating an article, with proper references, is difficult, and that there are other ways that you can assist Wikipedia, such as by editing, that are less difficult than creating new articles. If you do choose to create new articles via the AFC process, you will get feedback on your submissions, and, if a draft that is submitted for review is not up to Wikipedia' standards, it will normally be declined (sent back to you for more work) rather than deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

culture of timing between posting something in article's talk page and making the edit

I have posted on the talk page of an article (categorized as high-importance) that has had some intense discussion and reworking recently. My proposal could be understood as a major change to the article. It's applies to an entirely different section than the intensely discussed section, yet does shift the structure of the article. I'm proposing moving something from being a subsection to it's own section (and going forth with the content creation that would be appropriate for such a change). In this case, what is the considerate amount of time a graceful, and very new, editor might wait before making such a change, should no one reply to the proposal on the talk page? I'm ok with being WikiBold and with the ensuing conversations and potential reversions that could entail. Thank you for any wise advice or insight you might provide. AD64 (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, AD64. When asking a question about a specific article here at the Teahouse, it is always helpful to wikilink to that article. You have been working on several articles related to Tibetan Buddhism, and I am not sure what you are referring to.
Here is my own operating principle: If the article is infrequently edited, I will boldly restructure it as I see fit, always willing to discuss and compromise with other editors if anyone objects. On the other hand, if the article is actively edited, I would not restructure the article without creating consensus with other interested editors. If no one comments, you can always neutrally ping the most active editors, or initiate a Request for comment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt and very helpful response Cullen328. And for the reminders about always linking the article in question. I'm learning every day. Your own operating principle sounds wise and useful. I'll wait a few more days to see if anyone responds to my query on the Padmasambhava talk page and then ping a couple of folks and see what they might say. Again, the suggestions and advice are most welcome as I find my way here. (I promise to figure out how to link to your username as just 'Cullen' instead of 'Cullen328' in the form of a ping before long too). Best wishes, AD64 (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
p.s. I am most grateful for the link to RfC. I just encountered this for the first time today and am happy to know more about this process. Best, AD64 (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
As I review the Request for comment page and consider the various uses of an RfC, I have a question about the culture of using one. I can see how using an RfC could be a a kind of "escalation" when used to help resolve disputes. Does it have the same flavor for folks when used to ask for help or support with content? Is it a kind of red flag or does it read more neutrally for editors in the context of support for article content? Is it better, or more part of the culture here, to ask individual editors for support (when possible) or to initiate an RfC? Thanks again and best wishes, AD64 (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I do not think that I have ever initiated an RfC myself, though I have participated in many of them. One of the great advantages of RfCs is that the process draws in fresh faces and new participants, since willing editors are bot-invited at random to participate. The downside of inviting individual editors to participate is that people are incliined to invite input from friends and allies, not opponents. This is called canvassing and is completely contrary to Wikipedia cultural norms. Respected editors function as individuals, not as leaders of cliques. Call me an idealist if you want, AD64. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation of registered trade marks with new meanings and obsolete meanings

I am trying to work out how to insert a Disambiguation page so that three separate meanings can be given for the term "SafeCast"

  • SafeCast (software protection) was a registered trademark for Macrovision's legacy software protection system. The mark was abandoned by Macrovision and their trade mark registration ceased.
  • SafeCast is the registered trademark used for headcodes that enable the automatic filtering of video and image content by online age verification systems in television, web, tablet and mobiles
  • SafeCast Org Safecast is a website that aggregates radioactivity data from throughout the world in order to provide real-time hyper-local information that people can use to make their own informed decisions

Can someone give me a link to a possible template I could use? AlistairKelman (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, AlistairKelman. As far as I can see, we have an article only on the first of these, so a disambiguation page is not appropriate: DAB pages should distinguish the subjects of articles, not things that are not covered in Wikipedia. If you think the other two meanings are notable, then see if you can get articles written about them, and a dab page will then be appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I plan to create stub pages for the second two meanings of SafeCast since they are both notable topics which are going to increase in importance over time whilst the original Macrovision meaning of Safecast is going to decline into a historical topic. But without a DAB page it will not be possible to pull all these things together AlistairKelman (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Where do I find the answer to my teahouse question?

On 22 January 2016 I asked a question on how to edit an external link. This question was answered by Fuhghettaboutit‬ the same day. Where do I find this discussion (and how can I continue the discussion if needed). I want to change the external link in the English Simon Carmiggelt page to biography and bibliography to the page also used in the Dutch version (the page linked to in the English version is no longer maintained). I somehow do not manage. Best regards, Wim Wimke Kloek (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Here it is: [1]. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The easiest way for an average editor to find an old question they asked here at the Teahouse is to enter their own user name in the archive search box. So, when I entered Wimke Kloek in that search box, it told me that your question was in Archive 444. This works very well for editors who have participated in a handful of Teahouse conversations. Those like me who have participated in thousands need to use more sophisticated search tools. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I too need help fidning the answer to my previous question. I was directed to this teahouse page nby an email saying primehunter mentioned me here, but when I type "wild" or "irish" into the search box, I get 0 of 0. I've scanned this whole page and not seen my name... -Wild Irish Rose216.249.70.221 (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The account User:Wild Irish Rose was created in 2010 but has no edits and has not been mentioned by anyone. You were not logged in when you posted this so I cannot see whether you have another account. I mention a lot of users and don't remember whether one of them resembled "Wild Irish Rose". A Teahouse archive search did not find similar names. I guess you are User:Wild Irish Rose 2 but that account has not posted or been mentioned here. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

New proposed Wikipedia web page

HELP, HELP, HELP

I was the first on the internet with swing dance related web sites: SwingDance.com (1995), LindyHop.com (1995), DanceCorner.com (1996) and RetroSwing.com (1998).

Please see my proposed Wikipedia web page at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LeonRaper/About_you

Please refer me to a human being at Wikipedia and not just another Wikipedia web page.

I have a great deal of computer experience including 5 patents in computer circuit design. I designed circuitry in the computer in the Minuteman Missile. I also developed circuitry for the first digital organ for Allen Organ Company that was later stolen by Japan.

Hubert Leon Raper

Hubert Leon Raper 07:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonRaper (talk • contribs)

Hello, LeonRaper. I'm sorry, but you seem to have a misapprehension that Wikipedia is a way of promoting or publicising things: it is not. Wikipedia may not be used for promoting or publicising anything: it is only interested in subjects that several people unconnected with the subject have already published substantial material about (the jargon for that is that the subject is notable), and an article on any subject should be based almost 100% on what those independent sources have said about it.
If there is substantial published material about you, by people unconnected with you (which excludes material based on interviews or press releases) and published in reliable places, then Wikipedia may have an article about you. You are strongly discouraged from writing it (see autobiography), but if you are determined to go ahead, please read your first article, use the articles for creation process, and expect to have your work rigorously reviewed. You need to read referencing for beginners as well. --ColinFine (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Leon Raper and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a web host for storing your CV/ list of achievements. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Review of a short article

Hi all,

Can someone help me an review this short article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Small_Foot which is about a company which produces inflatable snowshoes. I would appreciate any comments and advice.

All the best, Nikolay StoyanNT (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi StoyanNT: My impression would be that you have done a good job at keeping the text generally non-promotional, but you haven't sufficiently demonstrated the type of notability required for coverage of companies or organizations. Quoting from the summary at the top of that guideline page, " An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." You provide only two sources; one of these is the company talking about itself (thus not independent), and the other merely demonstrates the existence of a kickstarter campaign (which says nothing about notability whatsoever). See if you can find coverage in newspaper articles, gadget magazines, review blogs, etc.; if no critical mass of such sources can be found, then the subject may very well not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the best way to report inappropriate content on a page? The page that prompted this is Albertus_Seba,

What is the best way for a general Wikipedia user to report seemingly inappropriate content on a page? On the page for Albertus_Seba, currently (as of 5/4/16) the last sentence under the heading, "Career," reads: "In 2015, 279 years following Seba's death, Australian students nation wide appreciated his constipated face as he proudly points down at the products of his efforts which his laxatives caused him to excrete on the dunny. It was widely believed that Sebafirst discovered he was balding when gazing soon his portrait. This true such hero will be remembered for centuries to come following this début in the HSC English Paper 1 Exam." This seems to me not to be a serious contribution to the article. Thanks 209.220.66.188 (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. You have the ability, mandate and are encouraged to revert all instances of vandalism you find yourself. This was as easy as clicking on the history tab, and after using the radio buttons to check that this childish vandalism was made in the last edit to the page, clicking on the date before the last edit, clicking edit, then saving the page with an edit summary like "revert vandalism". You could also have used the "undo" button here, though it is limited and will often not work with older edits.

Additionally, it is always good to warn the vandal. See WP:WARN for various template series that can be used for that purpose. Lastly, you can report obvious and persistent vandalism for a block from editing at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Before posting there, a final warning in an escalating series should have been posted to the user's talk page (for example {{Uw-vandal4}}, {{Uw-spam4}} or {{Uw-speedy4}}), and generally the user must have vandalized within the last few hours, including after the final warning was given. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

First, when reporting something inappropriate at a forum such as this Teahouse, it helps to provide a link to the article. The article was Albertus Seba. That particular edit has been redacted by an administrator. It obviously was vandalism. More generally, if you encounter obvious vandalism, and that was obvious vandalism, you may revert it yourself, and you may report the vandal to the vandalism noticeboard. However, since this is a widely watched page, by asking here, you caused action (the reversion and redaction of the vandalism) to be taken. Thank you for your attention to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this an example of vandalism?

Hi folks. As you know, I've been hanging around the Teahouse lately, and I really appreciate all your mentoring, skill, and support. I want to ask if what I'm seeing is considered vandalism. Since understanding what I'm seeing in the midst of the technology/formatting is one of my learning edges, I thought to bring it here to all of you to confirm or deny my understanding of the pages.

I got a notice that changes were made to the Samsara page. When I clicked the notification to "view this change", I was taken to this page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saṃsāra&diff=next&oldid=718548212

I looked through, and further down, there was a single word "pig" in it's own box, after the edits changing the preceding reference. I don't think this is Wikispeak.

Thanks for helping me learn the ropes here. Best, AD64 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

And, *if* it is vandalism, how do I know if something has been done about it already? Thanks again, AD64 (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@AD64: Thanks for coming by to ask this question. Yes, that is vandalism. The vandalism was actually undone a few minutes later by this edit. The general process when you find vandalism is 1) revert the edit 2) check the contributions of the person who did the vandalism. 3) Warn them on their talk page to stop 4) If they are doing a lot of vandalism, clean it up and report it at WP:AIV. If you want more information about dealing with vandalism at Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Vandalism. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 16:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks @Jayron32: for your quick response. I now see that if I had clicked the 'next edit' link at the top of the page, it would have navigated me to the page you are referencing where the vandalism was noted as undone. It's good for me to see how this process unfolds. and good to have the links on what to do should I be the one who needs to take care of it. Best, AD64 (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

how should i keep my page safe?

what can happen if my page does not have a password?will someone grab to own it or? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collins otieno omondi (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Collins otieno omondi. I'm not sure what you're asking about. If it's a page in Wikipedia, then you don't own it, and nor does anybody else, so there is no question of a password. If you're talking about a page in something else, this is not the right forum for it, as this page is about help in editing Wikipedia. You could ask at the Computing reference desk; but if you do so, please give more information about what kind of page you are talking about it, and where. --ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
If your question is about protecting your user page, which is the only Wikipedia page that sort of belongs to you, the answer is that Wikipedia user pages are very seldom vandalized, but, if your Wikipedia user page is vandalized, you can request that it be semi-protected. (You need a few more edits and two more days before you get auto-confirmed. In the meantime, be patient, because it is very rare for a user page to be vandalized.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Conventions when writing about a district of a city: regarding public buildings and attractions (parks etc.) with other attractions (e.g. outdoor sculptures) on the yard / in the park

Hi, I'm new to editing English Wikipedia, and because I don't have enough information about the conventions used here, I thought I'd ask about the following, because I couldn't find information about it when I tried searching.

Recently I translated an article about a district (Alppiharju) of Helsinki, Finland, because the article consisted only of a couple of sentences, and had been requested to be expanded by translating from the Finnish Wikipedia. In the process, I also searched for sources to cite. After translating the article, I continued with expanding the article based on the information in the various sources I found. At one point, I created heading "Buildings and attractions".

Now comes the question itself: there are 7 outdoor sculptures in public places within Alppiharju. 3 of them are in amusement park Linnanmäki, 1 is in the yard of The House of Culture (Helsinki), and 1 is in park Alppipuisto — all of which have been mentioned under the heading "Buildings and attractions". 2 outdoor sculptures are located elsewhere in Alppiharju. Should I mention the sculptures when mentioning the places where they are located, or should I make a level 3 heading for the sculptures, and mention all the 7 sculptures there? Or should I make some kind of a list in the article? I'm completely at a loss here, and I would really appreciate some help.

At least I consider outdoor sculptures in public places to be attractions worth mentioning. Of course, if it's not a convention here to mention outdoor sculptures in public places located in a district of a city within the Wiki-article about that district, I won't mention them in the article. But if they are considered worth mentioning, I would like to know the convention here in English Wikipedia, so that I would know what to do (both now and in the future) when translating and expanding articles about districts of Finnish cities or towns.
—Ylva Carennah (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ylva. As usual, it comes down to references. If you have a published source that thinks it worth mentioning the sculptures (not just listing them) then they should probably go in the article. If you haven't, then putting them in the article would be original research, and not appropriate. (Articles about places and districts often have a great deal of original research in them, unfortunately; but that is not a reason to compound the problem). --ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
You might also look at other district articles (see Category:Districts of Florence, Category:Districts of Paris, Category:Districts of Berlin, Category:Districts of Milan) and model your articles on similar ones that are older and have seen the participation of many different editors. Liz Read! Talk! 17:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The source I have is the official website of Helsinki City Art Museum. The website offers several ways to find information about public outdoor sculptures in Helsinki, including looking at a map with the sculpture locations marked, and various other search methods. Each sculpture has its own separate page, with a (copyrighted) photo or couple of the sculpture, information about both the sculpture and the sculptor (e.g. the year it was placed or moved to its present location, description of the sculpture, and the sculptor's style in general, sometimes even a bit more information about the sculptor and their style, or the history of the sculpture). So even though it is not an article, it is not a list either, but a searchable database, with information provided about both the sculpture and sculptor — sometimes with a more detailed paragraph, sometimes with just a couple of sentences mentioning the most important things. Does that sound reliable and noteworthy enough? —Ylva Carennah (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

david blaine born april 4 wtc opening day

is it good idea add small notice on db page april 4 1973 - wtc opening day

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1973#April_4.2C_1973_.28Wednesday.29

April 4 1973 (Wednesday)[edit] The World Trade Center officially opens in New York City with a ribbon cutting ceremony.

Born: David Blaine, American illusionist, in Brooklyn, New York.

911morningstar (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

See 9/11 conspiracy theories and the policy against original research. Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
That the WTC opened on the same day as David Blaine was born is not relevant to either article, 911morningstar - just as it is not relevant that on that day Pierre Werner extended the operating concession to Compagnie Luxembourgeoise de Télédiffusion until 31 December 1995, or many other events. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@911morningstar: No it would not be appropriate to add a note (as you have already tried several times), the two events are entirely unconnected. Nthep (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Ecoscraps

I reviewed Draft:Ecoscraps and declined it, saying that it read like an advertisement. Its author, User:BC1278, then posted to my talk page:

Hi Robert McClenon I've written many articles for Wikipedia. See: User:BC1278 for a partial list of articles I originated. If the subject of an article qualifies as "notable" but you find that specific language or issues need to be fixed, then as per Wikipedia policy, the article should still be approved, and the issues addressed individually, as per WP: Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I'd note that this company was featured as a cover story for Inc. Magazine, one of the largest circulation independent business magazines in the United States. [1] and has the subject of in-depth features stories on CNN Money[2], Forbes magazine[3] and Reuters.[4] These are all A+ level sources that have written in-depth articles about the subject. And there are several other in-depth stories from less well known, but still independent sources, such as Cool Hunting[5], BYU Magazine [6] and Biz Journals.[7] In all, there are nine feature stores specifically about this company from prominent independent sources. I think this level of independent sourcing is more than enough to establish notability. So, can we first please address the "notability" threshold and then circle back to any neutrality issues individually? I have re-cast the lead so it more immediately captures why all these news sources wrote long stories about the company. As to tone, I personally find it to be suitably neutral. There's no puffery or promotion of products that I can see. The names of the products aren't even mentioned. I just summarized the sourcing that I found most relevant, specifically the history of the company. I didn't omit anything negative -- there's nothing negative that I found in my research. But I'd be pleased to go into specifics and change anything if you can cite examples to help me understand your objections. BC1278 (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)BC1278

First, I agree with the author that notability has been established. I will take issue with the apparent claim that notability requires that the article be accepted. The policy says that notability means that a topic is presumed to be suitable, not that it must be accepted. Second, as the user’s user page notes, the author is a paid editor, and I have tagged the draft as conflict of interest. That does explain why the author is asking for very specific comments; COI editors often ask exactly how much promotion they can get away with and how much they have to revise. Third, I personally won’t accept the contribution of a paid editor based on my own review only, without another reviewer. Fourth, I would appreciate the comments of other experienced editors . Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi User: Robert McClenon, as per WP:COI, I revealed at the time I submitted the article for review that I was a paid consultant to the subject on the Talk page of the Draft Article, not just on my user page, where I also make a general disclosure. I'm not asking for specifics to see how far I can push promotion: I'm asking for specifics because i don't agree that there's any promotion in the article as defined by WP: PROMO. Every sentence carries a citation to a reliable independent source; none of the language is puffy or subjective. I have merely summarized the sources. You might argue WP:UNDUE if you think there's overemphasis on some section or another, but that's not the issue you raised. You rejected the article as reading like an advertisement, using a predefined template that challenges whether it is notable, if it's statements are backed by independent reliable sources, and if the language is neutral. I believe none of those things are the case in this draft. The sources include multiple in-depth profiles by top tier publications - the cover of Inc. Magazine, CNN Money, Reuters, Forbes. And five other in depth profiles by other reliable independent publications over a period of years. This company was written about a lot because they found a way to turn restaurant garbage into a consumer product, saving landfills, reducing methane emissions, and making money from other people's garbage. What I do in the article is summarize the sources. I've tried my best to be neutral in doing so, though I remain open to any and all feedback that I should redraft language. But you don't point out anything that fails the neutrality test. Subjects that are notable are indeed presumed to justify articles unless they fall under WP:NOT. The exception in WP:NOT that Robert seems to have in mind is WP:PROMO. This is the policy: "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable." I believe Draft: Ecoscraps follows this policy carefully. I understand that User: Robert McClenon might not feel comfortable reviewing an article where there is a declared COI. But I think the proper course, then, should have been for him to not review the article rather than decline it as being advertising. In the AfC process, if you find an article is notable but falls short, you should work with the submitting editor to fix any issues. I'd be pleased to do that. BC1278 (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)BC1278
Welcome to the Teahouse, BC1278. I have read your draft and agree that there is no overtly promotional language. The references appear solid although I have not studied them in detail. I understand the stance that Robert McClenon and many other editors share about paid editing, and have my own deep concerns about promotional editing of all types, the worst of which is undeclared. AFC was created, at least in part, to allow declared paid editors to create content. It is legitimate to take this route and it is legitimate for AFC reviewers to pass on reviewing such drafts. I hope another reviewer will take a fresh look at your draft. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Here's my comment. If I were ever to hire a paid editor, I would expect them to be more familiar with Wikipedia's policies than BC1278 is. Maproom (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
First, I basically agree with Robert McClenon's views on reviewing articles done by COI, especially paid COI, editors. I think his cautious approach in wanting to have another editor take a look is laudable. And I also agree with Maproom's comment above. Out of respect to Cullen328, I'll take a look at it. Like other reviewers, I don't relish reviewing articles from COI editors, which can have some of the most contentious and tendentious commenting back and forth. Even the above back and forth with BC1278 is tiring. Robert is being very patient, imho, personally I don't have time to put up with such wikilawyering. Onel5969 TT me 12:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I have reviewed this entry and what concerns me is the lack of current information about the business. Ecoscraps is now part of a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a major company. The proposed entry, through historically correct, clearly gives a very partial account of the company which does not assist in determining whether the establishment of Ecoscraps was a significant event in environmental protection measures or a lost cause that went nowhere and which ended up in a corporate bureaucracy. This suggests that Robert McClenon's view that this entry should be declined is upheld. A rewrite which overcame these criticisms might be acceptable since it would ensure that the entry was truly notable in the Wikipedia sense. AlistairKelman (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
AlistairKelman There is a story in an independent reliable source about the company and its products from January of 2016. I've cited to it. [1] I only included highly credible sources in the first draft. But I can go back an include a series of sources, reviews and updates from the gardening/trade press all through 2013-2015 based on your comments. BC1278 (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)BC1278
AlistairKelman, I have now updated the article with sources from every year until now. They do indeed have some very interesting information about the environmental impact and growth of the company. e.g. saving 9 million tons of methane emissions in 2013, composting 50 million pounds of food scraps as of 2015; collecting the food waste for Walmart and Costco; available in 1700 Targets. I consider all of the new sources, with the exception of FWx (part of Food and Wine at Time Inc.), to be second-tier, which is why they weren't in the first draft. While I wouldn't include them in the mix to establish notability, I think they seem reliable enough for secondary facts and provide exactly the context you requested.BC1278 (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)BC1278
I was surprised to see the emphasis on Dan Blake. He is repeatedly mentioned in the article as the founder. References 1 & 2 both mention co-founders. The other co-founder gets late mention as one of two other students. The COI disclosure mentions being a paid consultant. It doesn't mention who is paying. Gab4gab (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Gab4gab Sorry for the omission. I am a paid consultant to Hawthorne, which owns Ecoscraps. I updated the Talk page to reflect this.BC1278 (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)BC1278
Regarding Dan Blake, I am summarizing the independent sourcing, which discusses his role extensively. The other founders are mentioned as people he brought on board, but I found nothing that discusses what the other co-founders did. Just their name and school.BC1278 (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)BC1278

References

  1. ^ Serai, Kevin (26 January 2016). "Ecoscraps Organic Potting Soils". Cool Hunting. Retrieved 27 April 2016.

Help Issues

Hello Wikipedians!

I have been working on this draft for the last 3 years Draft:Alex Gilbert. I keep on updating it with sources. Coverage is actually over 3 years. I can't even do anything with Alex Gilbert as the title is salted. Can this be unsalted? It was salted because it was deleted in 2014. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Gilbert (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Gilbert. I really don't understand what I am doing wrong. I have added 2 new sources at Draft:Alex Gilbert which include [2] and [3]. Some other sources include [4] and [5]. I am sure this draft has passed basic notability. Am I wrong? All of these sources are from TVNZ, Huffington Post, Mirror and SBS Australia. I don't understand it? Really if this article goes onto the mainspace will it get deleted? Will someone really nominate it for deletion? What for though? Please actually look at the sources before commenting, people really don't look at them at all. DmitryPopovRU (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

First, you aren't helping your case by insulting other Wikipedians by saying "people really don't look at them at all". Second, you make a statement and ask a question that don't really both make sense in the same paragraph. On the one hand, you state that the draft has been salted, but at the same time, you ask what will happen if the draft goes into mainspace. If the title is salted, the draft cannot go into mainspace. However, if the title is not salted, then, if you move it into mainspace, it almost certainly will be nominated for deletion. Articles that are declined at AFC and are then moved to mainspace almost always are nominated for deletion. If you think that AFC is a painful process, you haven't tried AFD. Third, I do have a comment. If the title is salted, it should be unsalted, and should never have been salted. The two deleted Alex Gilberts do not appear to be the same person, and this Alex Gilbert is a third person. I haven't reviewed the sources, but I am not commenting on the merits of the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank You Robert McClenon. I am sorry for what I said before. I just don't know what to do anymore! I will just keep the draft up and running for the time being. I just want to know why the title can't be unsalted or why people think the article is not notable. I just don't believe that WP:BIO1E is relevant for this article now. Old sources, yes and that is understandable but the coverage has been going on for 3 years. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello DmitryPopovRU. Actually, the second AfD is the same person, though the first isn't. I looked at the two recent references you added. Those are interviews that consist mostly of Gilbert's own words and therefore are not independent sources that would establish notability. My personal experience is that it is unlikely that an article about this person will be accepted any time soon. By pushing too hard, you have created bad feelings about the topic, and the sources are weak. People seem to think that you are here only to promote Alex Gilbert, and react poorly to that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328. I understand that the bridges have been burnt. I do! But with all the other sources? Also the Article has been cut down and cut again. I guess I will just keep working on the draft. Yes the new ones are from his own words. Or what about this one? [6] or [7]? no? Does sources with the subject actually talking in them don't count at all? Even though the websites are reliable? What am I doing wrong? For example; If this article goes into the mainspace, do you personally think it will get nominated for deletion? That is what I am wondering about. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

If the article gets moved to main space, DmitryPopovRU, I think the chances that it will be nominated for deletion exceed 99%. It is on many editor's watch lists and many people have long memories. The best thing you can do is build the article based solely on what independent, reluable sources say. Rigorously exclude all else. Even so, that may not be enough. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, look. Thank You so much for your help! User talk:Cullen328. You are a great editor! Thanks for your advice. Nothing much I can do! I would love to see what would happen if it went through another AfD now. I think it would last! I believe it has reached borderline notability or at least it will in the future. Can nobody unsalt the article? Thanks anyways! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

DmitryPopovRU: You write "I really don't understand what I am doing wrong." Maybe you aren't doing anything wrong. Please read Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Maproom (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes and that is what I am struggling with Maproom. That nobody can actually help me with this, really. With the old article being unsalted. I guess that won't happen anytime soon. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

DmitryPopovRU ignore the deleted article. If the draft is accepted at some point then Alex Gilbert will be unsalted. That salting is a red herring in this discussion if the draft is about a different person. Nthep (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok thank you! Nthep --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Need help

I created an article and need help expanding it. Thanks. here is the article Death Note (Upcoming Film). Thebestisyettocome123 (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Thebestisyettocome123. It is difficult to expand an article about an upcoming movie when filming has not even started. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Note: I changed your external link to a wikilink for improved legibility. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_480&oldid=1086089923"