Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 February 3

= February 3 =

ISBN usage and articles with invalid ISBNs
I asked some questions on the talk page of CAT:INVALID and received some good answers but not all. If this is the correct space, I would like to ask some clarifications:
 * If a certain article, say The God Delusion, is about a book and contains an infobox, what information should the infobox contain? Is the information to be restricted solely to the first edition?
 * About ISBNs, if I cannot find any reliable sources, say libraries and such, containing an ISBN for the first edition, can this be interpreted so that the book's first edition has no ISBN? If there is an ISBN given and only sources for such an ISBN are user generated sites, Goodreads or Amazon, can this be interpreted that the ISBN is invalid? Can absense of evidence in this issue be interpreted as evidence of absense?
 * If a book was published at a time when it is possible it has no ISBN, but an ISBN can easily be found for a later edition, can this ISBN be used instead in the infobox?

The specific problem arose from the article Nine Princes in Amber and the fact the ISBN listed in the infobox does not seem to be listed in any reliable source. Yours, Voltteri (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The thread is Category talk:Articles with invalid ISBNs. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Is a statement by the official facebook account of an organization permissible as a source for an article about that organization?
There is little published information about the admissions rate of Deep Springs College. Could I use a statement made by the official Deep Springs facebook account about the admisions rate as a source? I know comments on social media sites are usually not considered to be reliable, but I thought I'd ask about this particular case. Here is a link to the facebook page in question, and a screenshot of the post: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Deep-Springs-College/131857996289 http://prntscr.com/60ezjq Anercyn (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Facebook is not considered a reliable source.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 02:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If the person who posted that came to Help Desk and asked for a change to the admissions rate in that article, we would reply that we need a reliable, published source. I don't see how the use of Facebook as a communication medium changes anything. However, I've seen admissions information accepted and cited from a school's official website, as in Texas Tech University. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To add to the above, there are some limited cases where Facebook may be used; see WP:SELFSOURCE for details. However, that would require that the Deep Springs College Facebook page be a "Verified Page" -- which it is not. Note that there is no blue check mark next to the name. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Recovering a sandbox page deleted by Ceredon for copyright infringement
Hi yesterday the sandbox page for our school building charity in Laos was deleted as Ceredon said that we had copied copyright material from the web and provided no external references.

I am a trustee of the NZ Government registered charity Bridging the Gap Mekong Trust and original author of the copy for its website which I now wish to donate.

The information was verified with links to stories in newspapers and other websites not associated with either the charity, or me, which appears to have been ignored by the editor.

Is it possible to recover the deleted page so I can finish the article and add more links to verify the content? Thanks GLC Sidelinecynic (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . There are two separate issues here: copyright, and references. On the copyright issue, unlicensed copyright material may not appear anywhere in Wikipedia, even in sandboxes, and when somebody finds any the required action is to delete it. From your description it is possible that it would have been more appropriate to remove the copied sections rather than delete the whole page: I can't see the deleted draft, so I can't tell. Normally an administrator can recover deleted material for you to work on, but I'm not sure what the situation would be when it is partly copyright. Please see WP:REFUND for more information on that.
 * You may indeed donate copyright material: the required steps are detaileds in WP:donating copyright materials. However, please note that material from a subject's own website is often not appropriate to a Wikipedia article, as it is usually (very properly) more promotional than neutral. I cannot tell what information from your site you included in your draft: the Home page of your site is not particularly promotional, I admit, but most of it is still not appropriate in tone (use of the first person, for example). It would be better to paraphrase it.
 * It sounds as if the draft was deleted for copyright reasons, rather than because of references: as a rule, draft articles get deleted only for reasons of copyright or personal attacks: other problems such as referencing are acceptable in a draft article because the presumption is that it is going to be improved before moving to main space. However, there is a point to make about referencing if you do choose to donate material from your website: the bulk of the material in a Wikipedia article needs to be referenced to independent reliable sources: non-independent sources are of limited use - generally only for uncontroversial factual data. If you release the material and copy it to the Wikipedia article, most of it will still need to be referenced, statement by statement, to independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The article has a number of hurdles to overcome. First and foremost, the material is used on another website and in particular is claimed as being copyrighted by Bridging The Gap Mekong Trust.  It therefore cannot be used here without first giving us permission according to the detailed requirements at WP:DCM, which irrevocably gives everyone in the world a free license to copy, modify, and distribute the material.  Very few organizations are actually willing to do this.


 * Second, there is no reason to do so, because the material is suitable to a web page, not an encyclopedia article. Of its six paragraphs, only two are about the organization at all, and even those are written in promotional language; the other four just try to convince the reader how worthy your cause is; that is not what Wikipedia is for.


 * Thirdly, Wikipedia requires that subjects of articles have multiple references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not just vague waves at their possible existence. The references you provided in the article were merely "NZ Herald" (just the name of a newspaper, not enough information to find the specific article that mentions your organization); "Morgan" (not enough even to tell what the source is); and "Bridging the Gap Mekong Trust" (your own organization may be a reliable source for uncontentious, non-extraordinary claims about itself, but it does not count towards satisfying our inclusion criteria).


 * Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable at Wikipedia, and for organizations in particular. &mdash;Cryptic 10:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you please confirm which deleted page you are talking about? Your sandbox was moved to Draft:Mekong Kayaks, leaving a redirect from your sandbox.  Neither the draft nor the sandbox have been deleted. One article (not a sandbox, and not a draft) of yours which was deleted was Bridging the Gap Mekong Trust, but that was deleted by User:Bbb23.  User:Ceradon (note the spelling) did not delete it, but nominated it for deletion and notified you about the copright violation. Is that the page about which you were asking? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

A cyber bully is using your site for personal gain!
Hello editors and the Wikipedia Team,

I have for years now used your site when researching information on pretty much anything and everything. I always found your information concise and fair. However I recently discovered a page on Universal Medicine that I find totally biased and disturbing. It is obvious from the references used that the writer or contributor has strong views against Universal Medicine, when I can stand here writing this and say that none of what is in any of those articles is of any truth. Pure manipulation is at hand.

Are you aware that this organisation has a group of haters (2 individuals with a handful of followers) who have been cyber bullying the organisation for the past 2 1/2 years and have openly admitted to being cyber trolls and not resting until they bring the organisation down. They are using you - a well established, well respected site, for their own means and intent - which is to shut down an organisation that has the utmost integrity in its practice.

Fairness here would be for you to remove this page, as it is indeed misinformed and without Facts. It compromises the integrity of your own site, whilst allowing these individuals to gain further weight in their deeply personal vendetta and hatred.

In truth, Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annamccormack26 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The article was recently discussed at Articles for deletion/Universal Medicine, and there was a strong consensus to keep. If you have constructive comments to make regarding the article, and references to independent published reliable sources to support your views, you can make suggestions on the article's talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Links to Wikis in other languages?
I'm drafting a new article which makes a passing reference to the French illustrator Jean-Pierre Cagnat. Cagnat has a biographical article in the French Wikipedia, but not in the English Wikipedia. Am I allowed to link to the article in the French Wikipedia? Or does someone have to create a translation in the English Wikipedia? Muzilon (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only with caution, since this is a personal name - see WP:REDNOT. If you're confident that this person merits an article on the English Wikipedia, Template:Interlanguage link is built for this purpose;  produces . &mdash;Cryptic 10:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Moved talk page
A semi-vandal has just moved my talk page to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Delete_please!&redirect=no I tried moving it back, but it didn't work. What to do? I pretty much don't have a working talk page anymore. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed it with this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFunkMonk&diff=645455969&oldid=645455418 But now the history is gone. Why is it even possible for random users to move talk pages of other users? Seems ridiculous. The user is pretty much a troll account: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Regisaurusjacobi FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The situation is fixed now and the disruptive user has been blocked. There is sometimes reason to move talk pages of other users, for example when they have written a draft article there instead of a more appropriate place. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Grammatical and typographical error
At the following URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_coefficient Ballistic coefficient Background section 4th paragraph 1st sentence - needs a period at the end of the sentence. 2nd sentence - remove the word "is" between "resistance is increases" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.59.43 (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you, . The corrections have been made.  In the future, please feel free to make these corrections yourself by clicking the "edit" button at the top of the section you're reading or at the top of the article.  Thanks again, Dismas |(talk) 15:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

adding a podcast
I am trying to add a radio broadcast which I have available as an MP3. How can I add this to the Wikipedia page as it has no url. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolorob (talk • contribs) 15:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you sure that you own the copyright to the broadcast? --David Biddulph (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I can check that one but in any event how can I embed it on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolorob (talk • contribs) 15:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You would need to upload it to Wikimedia commons, and then Wikilink it from there just as with images. But as David Biddulph says, you must do this only if it has been explicitly released under a suitable licence by the copyright holder - see donating copyright materials. Otherwise it may not be used in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Add a podcast
This is a follow up to a previous question and a reply to Bill as I can not see another way of replying. My original question was "how can I include a podcast" in a page as it does not have a url? He very kindly replied that you should use the ((cite podcast)) method which I have tried but then how do I attach the podcast as it has no url? There is no identity to paste on to the page is there? The podcast is a radio interview with the BBC and has been given to me for use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolorob (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If it is a recording of a BBC broadcast the copyright most likely belongs to the BBC, thus if you upload the file anywhere it would be a copyright violation and a link to it from Wikipedia would not be permitted anyway. Use cite AV media to reference the original broadcast but do not link to any copy of the recording except if it is hosted by the BBC itself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Btw, the only "Bill" I can find is on your user talk page, here. To reply to Bill, you would click "edit" on that section and add to the end of the text, just as you have done at least once on this page. Judging from Bill's comments, he is watching your talk page for awhile, so it probably would not be necessary to ping him to notify him that you have replied. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Citation spam?
When I saw this edit, I tried to verify the citation but the link did not give a useful result (it works now/today). I checked the contributions of the editor and realized that he/she is always adding links to omnilogos.com and has already received a level 4 spam warning. The citations appear to be reliable (most of them published by Gale) but they seem to promote the omnilogos.com site.

Should these citations, or the links, be removed? JimRenge (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My take is as follows, others may disagree. I have only looked at the example in your first link, and briefly at the user's earlier history.
 * The source they cited appears to support the content, where there was previously no citation at all. That seems an improvement to the article. If it can be further improved later, with a more authoritative source, great.
 * I didn't see anything promotional in the source. Can you point to something more promotional?
 * I don't see a problem with the use of the omnilogos site exclusively in one's citations, provided they are good sources. That alone is not reason for alarm. I could be missing something, but the spam warning looks like an overreaction to me. Starting with level 4 was definitely inappropriate, which makes me question the judgment of the person who made the warning (30,000+ edits or not).
 * Like any religion, Buddhism is a high-visibility topic, and that article, Buddhism, has 1,577 watchers. Bad edits are unlikely to slip through with that many editors looking at them. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref
How do I enter a citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennap7 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * For the basics, see References for beginners. Dismas |(talk) 17:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If you have a problem with a specific page then always say which page. I looked at your edits and found Cartography where you ended references with . Tags always end with forward slashes as in  . I have fixed the refs in the article.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cartography&diff=645475603&oldid=645474934] PrimeHunter (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

can you?
can people create their own page to tell other people about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MurphyDogIsMine (talk • contribs) 17:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No. This is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook. Our articles cover notable subjects, as demonstrated in third-party published reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That's half true. You can't create articles about yourself unless you're notable, but you can have a bit of a biography on your user page. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing for spelling and grammar
I am new to Wikipedia and would like to edit articles for grammar and spelling.

I have looked at the following to find errors:

Fix spelling and grammar • Learn how

Maria Pogee - Sinhalese Sports Club Ground - Superboy's Legion - Hata clan - Waje

I have searched for typos but have yet to find one.

Could someone please show me where such errors occur?

Many thanks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodstockboy22 (talk • contribs)

(formatted for easier access) GermanJoe (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Category:All articles needing copy edit is a list of articles that have been tagged by editors as needing copy editing. However, copy editing includes more than simple spelling and grammar corrections, which appears to be your area of interest, so you might not find that very useful as a starting point.
 * For spelling, you could start with Commonly misspelled English words. Choose a common misspelling, for example "beleive". Go to Advanced Search. Ensure that only the (Article) box is checked. Enter "beleive" in the search box next to the blue Search button. That should produce a list of the word "beleive" in Wikipedia articles. Go through the list and make corrections. Be careful with misspellings within quotations, titles, etc., as such misspellings may be intentional. You can check the sources, or just skip those; if in doubt, leave it alone. When you reach the end of the list, repeat for "beleived", "beleiving", "beleivable", "beleif", etc. Then start over with a new misspelled word.
 * Grammar is a different matter, as it's impossible to search for bad grammar. For that, you could look through the copy edit category linked above, or simply browse articles randomly.
 * You could also monitor Special:RecentChanges, clicking on the "diff" links and looking for spelling or grammar errors within the changes/additions on the right side of each diff. Choose (Article) from the Namespace pulldown list (and then click "Go") so you only see changes to articles.
 * What you're wanting to do is called gnoming. Gnomes are important. Thank you.
 * As an aside, I suppose there could be a SpellBot that would maintain a Category:Articles containing possible spelling errors. But the true typos might be lost in a forest of false positives. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You may also be interested in WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, the co-ordination page for the project's copyeditors, and Typo Team, the co-ordination page for the project's spelling specialists. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * there are lists of searches for misspellings at Lists of common misspellings which includes Lists of common misspellings/Grammar and Misc - some grammar mistakes can be searched for (use of "a" v "an", "their" v "there", singular article with plural noun "a strata" etc.) - Arjayay (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm all the time finding words that are misspelled in the way suggests (and correcting them). This is because I'm always making typos even in the search box. I just hope I found all the ones I made in articles.—  Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  23:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Readership levels of Wiki articles seem to have halved in 2 years
I have been tracking the popularity stats for Wiki psychology article for over 2 years. Compare the stats from say 2 years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology/Popular_pages&oldid=533632110 with the latest data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology/Popular_pages, every article has had a sharp decline in readers, on average about 50%. Either there is a problem with stats accuracy or more scarily the readership of Wikipedia is plummeting which is very depressing as you would have thought it was expanding.--Penbat (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note the warning, near the top of the first page linked above, "Note that due to the use of a different program than http://stats.grok.se/ the numbers here may differ from that site." Maproom (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No its not that. Ive just asked the developer the same question, see User_talk:Mr.Z-man. He responded with plausible suggestions that it is a combination of load shedding and mobile views not being included. Apparently it depends on the WMF fixing it but they havent which is a big shame - surely they cant be short of money ? --Penbat (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Upload a draft?
Hello,

I have completed a draft of an article and would like to upload it. What is the process for this? V.Vromano7 (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I have added a box to Draft:Benevolent Racism with a green button you can use to submit it for review. But first see Notability and Neutral point of view. It's unlikely to be accepted currently. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, unlikely. Sourcing any new phrase entirely to the writer who coined it is certain to make Wikipedia speak in his voice when describing what it means. Anyone can invent a new phrase ("sub-benign multiplasmos" doesn't get any Google hits), but it takes other people using and perusing it to make it notable. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My phrase now gets five Google results, but that's still just computers talking. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)