Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 January 18

= January 18 =

plagarism
U DO PLAGARISM NO REAL ONLY FAKE NO DO PLAGARISM NOW OR I TELL EVERY BODY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.59.243.6 (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Firstly, please don't SHOUT. Secondly, if you want us to investigate a problem you'll need to give us a wikilink to the page concerned, and evidence of the alleged plagiarism. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you even respond to that? His message makes no sense. WhatsUpWorld (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Richard Chang
Dear Wikipedia,

My name is Richard Chang. I am a frequent reader of Wikipedia, and rely on the website for a lot of general information.

Naturally, I entered my own name in Wikipedia's search field, to see if I showed up. But, to my dismay, when I did that, it redirected to this page about ASE Group in Taiwan. I guess a guy named Richard Chang is one of the founders.

But this is not fair, because there are literally dozens of different Richard Changs, some of whom are quite notable and very distinct from this Taiwanese guy. For instance, there's an Irvine based self-help/business author named Richard Chang, there's an actor named Richard Chang, there's an art collector named Richard Chang, there's a guy who used to work for the New York Times named Richard Chang, there's a public relations specialist from UC Riverside named Richard Chang, and there's myself, an arts & culture editor for LA Weekly. All different guys, all named Richard Chang. All worth separate recognition in Wikipedia.

Check out this site for more about all the different and talented Richard Changs out there.

I don't think it's fair that one guy in Taiwan gets the credit and redirect for the name Richard Chang. I suspect he's been trying to make his own Wikipedia page or force this redirect for years. I suggest you delete the redirect, or give users a list of all the different references where "Richard Chang" shows up, like you did in the past.

My Wiki username is richiechang2002. Thank you very much for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richiechang2002 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Perhaps there are several Richard Changs who are notable enough for Wikipedia biographies. I do not know. I also see a physician who may be notable. If we had biographies of these various people, then we would follow established procedures for disambiguating among them. But we don't have those biographies. As for the Taiwanese Richard Chang who is the subject of the redirect, Forbes magazine says that he is a billionaire, so my working assumption is that he is the most notable of the world's Richard Changs. Solid evidence might convince me otherwise. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  07:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Please be careful about writing stuff like "I suspect he's been trying to make his own Wikipedia page or force this redirect for years." unless you have very good evidence for it. While Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia happens, the text about him in the Richard Chang article gives no hint of this. My working assumption is that he has more interesting things to do with his time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There's also Richard Sui On Chang, so I've added a redirect hatnote to ASE Group. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Mr. Chang, hi. Please try to consider that disambiguation is just a technical thing; it has nothing to do with notability. There are, for example, about 10 million people called "Kim"[ Citation probably needed, meh]. Few have articles about them.


 * I suggest you read An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing too.


 * Wikipedia does not care who is the most notable. It just cares if someone is "notable" or not (according to its own definitions of that term) - if they are, an article can exist; if they are not, it cannot.


 * Beyond that, then the only consideration is whether or not anyone writes an article about the person. But it's a REALLY bad idea to write one yourself; if you're famous enough then - eventually - someone will.


 * Wikipedia never claims to be fair; it just has reasonably logical rules. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Seeking help in writing on Wikipedia
Hi, I'm a new user. I seek help in writing on Wikipedia. Please tell me the rules and other standards of writing on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afeef Seraj (talk • contribs) 11:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Afeef Seraj - Start by completing Wikipedia's new user tutorial! It will teach you all of the basics you'll need to know in order to contribute comfortably here and start gaining experience. Good luck, and welcome to Wikipedia! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have left some helpful links at your talk page. Eagleash (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Plagiarised article
Hi I made an article back in November last year before I created an account, I've now noticed someone else has deleted mine, copied it and renamed it to class as his own work. I am not happy about this but I don't know what to do.146.200.77.220 (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link to the article? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Seems to refer to Golden Hind (passenger train)
 * Note See Help desk/Archives/2018 January 6, User talk:Andrewrabbott and User talk:RHaworth.
 * Please do not edit archived content of talk pages. As noted elsewhere, there is no trace of any draft by yourself. The conclusion drawn by other editors is that it is unlikely that the draft (if it existed) was saved correctly. Any editor is at liberty to create any content at any time (within Wikipedia's policies) and any article or topic does not 'belong' to one person (see WP:OWN). Please do not create threads on the same topic in multiple locations and take care when making accusations against other editors. In the absence of any link to your draft, sorry, but there seems little that can be done to help you. Eagleash (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * And see Talk:Golden Hind (passenger train), where the matter was investigated and the IP has subsequently made a legal threat. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You didn't name the page here and your IP address has no edits before 2018 so the above editors didn't find the page. I have found from your other edits that it's about Draft:The Golden Hind (Named Train). The IP address 209.93.106.136 created it 24 November 2017 and submitted it for review the same day. There can unfortunately be a long waiting time. The draft was reviewed 31 December 2017. By then an article had been created at Golden Hind (passenger train) 17 December 2017‎. The draft was deleted as "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic". That may seem unfair when your page was created first but I compared the deleted draft to Golden Hind (passenger train) (only administrators can see deleted pages). I see no sign of plagiarism. They are just two pages about the same train with content as different as I would expect from pages written independently about a topic with relatively little published information. Experienced users can create articles directly without a draft. If users create an article with the same title as a draft then the page creation screen tells them there is a draft. The pages were named differently here so the article creator was not alerted. They would have to search the draft namespace for "Golden Hind" to find the draft. I guess they didn't do that, and there is no obligation to do that. You say "someone else has deleted mine, copied it and renamed it". Draft:The Golden Hind (Named Train) was not deleted by the author of Golden Hind (passenger train), and the page is definitely not a copy no matter how the similarities and differences are evaluated. In [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golden_Hind_(passenger_train)&diff=821116077&oldid=821027696] you claimed "They are not different". That is completely false. Do you have a copy of the deleted draft so you can compare the pages? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking I'd seen a deleted draft at the time of the original thread at the help desk but couldn't recall the location. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input
I started to reference the Federal Holidays Act as it concerns the fact that Canada Day is on July 2nd in 2018, but then realized that it had probably already been included in the references. I apologize for this, and I hope you can fix it for me, as I cannot figure out how to do that. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadaDayShouldBeOnJuly1st (talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone already fixed it (here).


 * Please note that if others disagree with your edits, you must discuss them on the talk-page of the article (so, in this case, Talk:Canada Day) - don't get involved in an edit war. I suggest you read WP:BRD; I'm not suggesting you've done anything wrong, but it's good to know about that stuff. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Geraldine, New Zealand
In addition to the clear POV, I strongly suspect that a bunch of the article is copypasta, probably from a copyrighted source.

I do not have the time or inclination to 'SoFixIt', so I am asking here in the hope someone else will.

The current article sounds like a tourist brochure, and does a disservice to Wikipedia; "a country village atmosphere, with majestic old forests", "very precious and extensive podocarp forest with abundant birdlife, and with many reminders" - it's a perfect example of peacock. But if my suspicions about CV are correct, and revdel is necessary, then that becomes irrelevant.

It's quite a nice little place, and very popular with tourists, so I'm sure the article is useful to many, and thus hope someone can improve it. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Some of those words are at https://geraldinehs.school.nz/about-geraldine/ and https://romanticgestures.co.nz/south-island-getaways/ among other places, but were added to the Wikipedia article in 2005, so it is possible that some of the other pages copied the material (without attribution) from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 17:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly; and frankly, that's why I didn't just fix it myself. It's messy. Is still around? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Remember that in situations like the ping won't work, see WP:Notifications. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I was not aware of that - the whole 'ping' thing is new to me. I shall poke Maggie on her talk instead. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl active in Wikimedia but not so active as the copyright Queen. That title has been taken over by .-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Gods help us; I estimate that 25% of Wikipedia is CV. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Assuming CV mean copyright violation, I have no illusions some have been missed, but 25% seems wildly high. Any basis for your assumption?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect Article Title/Content
Article in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spikeball

Hi there - I am new to this, so I'm not certain this is the right place to address this concern, but the content of this page, which is under the title Spikeball, is actually mostly descriptive of the sport of roundnet.

Spikeball™ is a trademarked brand name (Kankakee Spikeball Inc™), which manufactures and sells equipment used to play the sport of roundnet. There are numerous other companies that make similar equipment, under many different names, and all of those products are used to play the sport of roundnet.

Roundnet is a sport with rules similar to 2v2 beach volleyball, but played using equipment like that depicted in this article, which was originally made by Kankakee Spikeball Inc.

This article is misleading and jeopardizes the accuracy of public knowledge regarding the important distinction between the generic name of the sport (roundnet) and the trademarked brand name (Spikeball™)

I think the easiest fix, given that most of the information on this page accurately depicts the sport of roundnet, would be to change the title of this article to "Roundnet", make a few changes to the content, and move some of the brand specific information to a new page called Spikeball™. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.112.107 (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I suggest you do that. Per WP:BRD.


 * As an IP (not registered), you can't move it yourself, but you can request it at WP:MOVE. Doing that would actually leave a redirect called 'Spikenet' which you could edit as you see fit.


 * If you need help, ask again. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that this rationale sounds plausible so I made the move.


 * I did not make any edits to the article itself which are necessary. It does appear that roundnet Is the generic name for the game while Spikeball is a company specific name.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Confused why my edits were taken out
Hello, I was just editing a Wikipedia page for a colleague (Dean Winslow) and I included references to update his career profile and community service. At first they were just taken out because I didn't supply references, but the second time I made sure to include references and the edits were still taken out. Is there any way to revert to my version of the article? I got his bio from our official Stanford sources but there isn't a specific page that has all the information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Winslow 2601:647:4000:CF:51EA:6DD2:BF83:14F (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See your talkpage. Your edits were a copyright violation; Wikipedia can only accept material which is either in the public domain (and attributed as such), or is written in your own words. &#8209; Iridescent 19:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This was also asked at OTRS, where I gave similar advice. S Philbrick (Talk)  19:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, if I may be a bit picky (if you can't be picky in Wikipedia where can we be picky:), it is correct that two options are public domain or in your own words, but we also accept text under certain free licenses. File_copyright_tags/Free_licenses-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not WP:FUR? Definte 'free' please? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, not WP:FUR which is for non-free media used under fair use provisions. Doesn't apply to text. "Free" is sort of defined at the link, but in practice, it means it has one of those licenses.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, not WP:FUR which is for non-free media used under fair use provisions. Doesn't apply to text. "Free" is sort of defined at the link, but in practice, it means it has one of those licenses.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Cgmyers, we have no way to know you are the person that wrote, "Dean Winslow, MD is a Professor of Medicine with appointments in both the Division of Hospital Medicine and the Division of Infectious Disease". That exact phraseology exists on the interwebs in another document, and that document does not say that it is available for others to copy.

If you wrote it, you can certainly amend it to say that it is free to be copied, see WP:MYTEXT.

Note that this does not remove the necessity of verifiable information (ie, the need to supply references to reliable sources to verify the facts claimed). 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

further reading in wildlife stubs
How much further reading is too much in a wildlife stub? For example, at Banded antbird, the further reading section is 10 lines, while the article itself is only 2. While I'm thinking of it, what would be some good resources for editing wildlife articles in general? Gabriel syme (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally, I rarely have any further reading section at all in my FAs. If it's relevant, use it as a ref, if it isn't, leave it out. What area of wildlife are you particularly interested in? There are various projects that can help you Jimfbleak - talk to me?  19:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * At this point, I do a lot of random page editing, so I end up finding myself at wildlife articles frequently. Btw, what do you mean when you say 'my FAs'? Featured Articles I'm thinking yeah? Thanks for the help! Gabriel syme (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:FAs are supposed to reflect good practice, and "further reading" isn't seen as being that Jimfbleak - talk to me?  19:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed five of the nine "further reading" items, because they weren't suitable for reading. Two were catalog or checklist entries, one was not available online, and two were behind paywalls. Four is probably still too many. Maproom (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the British Museum one as well, the three that are left are at least specific to its geographical area. Gabriel syme (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The stub has the further issue of having nine references but no inline citations. Would it make sense to pare that down to two or three if I can cite all the information from them? Gabriel syme (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

If the info can be put in the article (and ref'd to the RS), then it should be - so there's no need for 'further reading...'.

If it cannot be incorporated, then you have to wonder whether it is relevant; I mean - if it's RS about the subject, they why can't it be in the article?

'Additional info' or 'see also' should be carefully reserved for copyrighted links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Carefully reserved for copyrighted links? Apologies, that didn't parse for me. Gabriel syme (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * If an EL is RS and not copyrighted, then why not just put those facts in the article?


 * If it's not RS, who cares (blogs, meh) 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Earlier in the history of Wikipedia, the idea was that any subject that was notable should get an article, even if the article was very short and incomplete, so long as the article asserted notability and and the claim to notability was referenced to reliable sources. The idea was that maybe someone could come along later and expand the article. Such articles were called "stubs", and these articles had "further reading" sections as a guide for later editors who could improve the article. As the article incorporated material from these sources, an editor could choose to remove a reference from this section. We seem to be moving away from this model. -Arch dude (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm a total newb here so that insight is much appreciated, as is your, ahem, neutral language. If we are moving away from that model, how to preserve the best parts of it is the first question that comes to mind. Totally unrelated to the original post though so maybe send it to my talk if you have some advice and we can close this here, thanks for taking the time yo. Gabriel syme (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Responded on talk 86.20.193.222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

If the sources are reliable
Hello! :) I need an advice of more experienced editors whether next sources are enough reliable:

1) http://dutchcultureusa.com/blog/1242/amina-figarova-in-concert-at-apap-showcase

2) http://www.jazz.org/dizzys/events/168068/amina-figarova-sextet-album-release-party/

3) http://newyorkjazzworkshop.com/faculty/amina-figarova/

4) https://ny.curbed.com/2013/12/27/10160310/videogame-magnate-buys-in-135-east-79th-street-for-10-7m

5) http://www.mcvuk.com/articles/publishing/interview-greg-fischbach

6) https://news.sfsu.edu/news-story/gator-game-changers-sf-state-honors-groundbreaking-alumni

7) http://www.ign.com/articles/2003/06/03/acclaims-greg-fischbach-steps-down-2

8) https://www.gamespot.com/articles/former-acclaim-boss-slammed-in-court-docs/1100-6132505/

Best regards, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) ♥ —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It depends on context. For example."YouTube" might be RS for quotes on a certified channel, but maybe not for their videos that 'prove' the world is flat.


 * It all depends on what facts you want to verify.


 * For example, in the first, it's OK to verify her birthday, but not OK to verify that it's "her most accomplished and evocative to date".


 * A lot of these sources look like PR (press releases, promotion) - so must be handled with care.


 * Articles must be based on independent reliable sources.


 * Maybe you can ask which specific claims verify which specific facts? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

86.20.193.222 (talk), thank you very much for your explanation! You mean if I need to verify a birthday there are not so much demands to the source? (there are a lot of BLP stubs that even don't have dates of birth) Lidiia Kondratieva (talk)


 * :: in this question at The Teahouse, you asked similar questions, apparently about someone who died in 1382. Here, you are asking about someone who is still alive and has been accused of embezzlement. The cases are very different. If someone died in the fourteenth century, the sources about him are unlikely to be biased, and even a local paper like The Hinkley Times can be trusted. If someone is alive, a much higher standard of sourcing is required. A blog (like the first source listed above) is never considered reliable. Maproom (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Maproom! Here and at the Teahouse I asked about different sources related to different people as well. Here it's all about BLP. I also doubted about the first source, so now it's more clear for me. Thank you! Lidiia Kondratieva (talk)