Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 June 14

= June 14 =

Syntax highlighting
For users wondering how to disable a sudden syntax highlighting feature, click the pencil icon to the left of "Advanced" in the toolbar above the edit area. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * PrimeHunter: Thanks! That worked. The feature might be a good idea, but for the moment it is a disaster, because if text is highlighted as a result of a search, typing does not replace the highlighted text as it would ordinarily. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the rescue - I tried that feature in beta and didn't like it, mostly because I had already set up, and become used to, my own syntax highlighting. Leschnei (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7aa0:ef90:5847:4ff6:c51b:8fdb (talk • contribs) 05:33, 14 June 2018 05:33 (UTC)
 * The above is the only post from the IP address used. Please provide a link to the page where you are encountering difficulty. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Tables
Hi everyone! I've been working on this page I've created yesterday by translating it from Italian, and I wanted to create the small table to the right you can see on the original page. Thing is, in spite of being on Wikipedia for years I'm not familiar with the technical procedure at all. I've just come up with this, which takes up the entire space! I'd like it to be significantly smaller and moved to the right, just like on the Italian version. Can anyone help me out? Thanks in advance.Dk1919 (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Trappist the monk already took care of it in Special:Diff/845818208/845820117 with the addition of "width=25%". Looks good? Sam Sailor 11:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Thank you! Have a good day.Dk1919 (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Grazie e altrettanto. Sam Sailor 11:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you kindly explain why my edit was removed?
I recently offered a rather detailed edit on the Wikipedia entry on "Buddhist Poetry". I added a detailed section about Buddhist poetry in India, with some emphasis on the Sanskrit tradition. All my additions were removed by an editor with the explanation that my edit was "not constructive". I would appreciate some further explanation. In its present state, that is, without my edit, the entry on "Buddhist Poetry" is entirely tilted towards East-Asian poetry, giving the misleading impression that an Indic Buddhist poetic tradition did not exist. This, in fact, could not be further from the truth. I would be grateful if I could receive a clearer explanation of why my edit was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vardhanajñāna (talk • contribs) 13:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the only entry by your account. Are you sure you saved (published) your edit? RJFJR (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes I am certain. Several people even read it and offered some suggestions, which I incorporated. The reason why the edit does not appear with my account is that I created an account only after this happened. I had edited without an account first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vardhanajñāna (talk • contribs) 13:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably relates to Buddhist poetry where some recent IP edits were removed and a message left at the IP talk page that they were unconstructive. Eagleash (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As the IP had made a large addition which was entirely unsourced, the reversion should not have been a surprise. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the History tab for Buddhist poetry the revert was done by user:Z0 who didn't leave a summary but you could ask on their talk page user talk:Z0. RJFJR (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Assuming (as others have) that this was the revert in question, it was entirely because none of that material cited a professionally-published academic source. Wikipedia does not use original research, sources need to be cited. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I have now revised the article once again, including a large number of references. I would be grateful if you could have a look to let me know whether now the cited sources look sufficient. Vardhanajñāna (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The last two paragraphs you added are still entirely unreferenced, and in one place written in the first person; both points need to be addressed, or the paragraphs removed. Moreover, all your references lack page numbers. Maproom (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I removed the first person, and added one reference - I will add one more to the Pāli part but I will need a day or two. As for page numbers, I am not sure whether I understand what you mean. The references are to editions and or translations of the primary source texts that are being cited and presented in the body of the article; thus I am not sure I understand how I could restrict the reference to specific page numbers? Vardhanajñāna (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:PRIMARY for why that still does not work.
 * The best course of action is not to write material and then look for sources. The best course of action is to find a professionally-published mainstream academic secondary or tertiary source and to summarize and paraphrase it.  Wikipedia does not use original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I will keep that in mind. In this case, I do not think that there is any secondary or tertiary source that could be of great help, as Buddhist poetry is Sanskrit is not a field where many up to date accessible overviews have been written. I will however add a few sources that I think could be relevant - although the section, on the whole, will not constitute neither a summary nor a paraphrase of those sources, as they themselves do not offer an actual comprehensive overview.Vardhanajñāna (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, . If there are no sources, then there is nothing you can add to the article: it is as simple as that. --ColinFine (talk) 08:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

There are sources, but they are either primary sources, translations of primary sources, or sections of introductions to those translations and editions; and some remarks scattered in different articles. I have indeed indicated those sources (so far more than twenty, including some the most respected works in the field of Buddhology and Indological studies relating to Buddhist poetry in Sanskrit), and I am adding further references. What I intended to emphasize is that there are no sources that offer a comprehensive overview, and therefore some of the references refer to entire works without specifying any particular page (for example, I have referred to editions and/or translations of some of the texts that I have mentioned, and I do not see how those references could be restricted to specific pages).Vardhanajñāna (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . Welcome to Wikipedia! I apologize that your work was not appreciated. It is my opinion that the editor who removed your work should have taken a look at what you wrote to notice that it was definitely not a test and then proceed to welcome you and tell you about the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Sadly many times other editors don't appreciate the work of new editors and even manage to discourage them from editing in Wikipedia at all. You did a great job with your work on the Buddhist poetry article. Learning policies and guidelines will take some time but I encourage you to keep coming and posting such interesting information. Thinker78 (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. I rather understand why the initial version of my additions may not have looked easily compatible with the Wikipedia guidelines, thus I see that all the criticism I received was not without reason. I have to say that some of the guidelines do not seem entirely suited to my own field of interest (i.e. Buddhology/Indology/textual studies), and I found them slightly confusing. While the idea that there should be some basis on secondary sources is understandable, encouraging contributions exclusively based on secondary sources may be, in my opinion, not entirely fruitful. In my opinion (and surely it may disputed, but it is not an entirely uncommon view) it is in fact quite hard, if at all possible, to properly comprehend secondary sources in Buddhology or Indology without the ability to access the primary sources too; all the more so when it comes to something like poetry, where secondary sources are bound to analyse key features of the primary sources in their original languages. The present wording of the Wikipedia guidelines could perhaps be at least slightly reconsidered so as to be applicable to a broader range of fields, and so as to encourage accuracy and reliability in the entries (I do think that some entries, while perfectly acceptable from the perspective of the Wikipedia guidelines, turn out to be rather inaccurate and partial; and this has to do with the authors' inability to read primary sources, which in turn determines the very small selection of secondary sources used for those, in my view not balanced, entries). I am trying my best to comply with the guidelines, so as to show that my overview of Buddhist poetry in Sanskrit does not constitute original research (all those texts have been studied); yet perhaps some fine-tuning of the guidelines could be helpful to myself and to others like myself who are more accustomed to textual scholarship in these fields. Think about it this way: one may not want an entry on Shakespeare written in, say, Swahili by a Swahili reader who has only read Swahili secondary literature on Shakespeare without any ability to read Shakespeare's works in English. At least, I feel that this should not be the favoured option. It would be best to encourage entries that do take into account primary sources too, as this is one of the conditions that favours an understanding of the secondary literature. Or perhaps I have not understood the guidelines properly, in which case, I apologize for my own misunderstanding. In any case, my present comments are meant to be as constructive as possible, as I think Wikipedia offers an invaluable service (hence I resolved to contribute whenever time allows). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vardhanajñāna (talk • contribs) 14:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Mistake! I "Move" a page from sandbox
Hello there,

I'm a rookie and I'm so sorry if I must ask you help. I did a nonsense. I prepared a new article but to publish it I used "move" from my sandbox creating a Wikipedia project. The result is that my sandbox has disappeared and connected to the project. How can I cancel the project and bring back the sandbox (to my user page)? Thank you so much for your suggestion. Lucamodena (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You didn't create a "project", you made it an article, called Luca Antignani. I've moved it to Draft:Luca Antignani, as it needs a little more work before it's ready to be an article. (refs should follow not precede punctuation; "Venise" is spelled "Venice" in English, city names like that can usefully be made into wikilinks e.g. Venice, and when you've done that there's no need to specify which country they're in.) Maproom (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * . You didn't move the article Luca Antignani but the incorrectly placed Luca Antignani. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, thank you Maproom an David Biddulph. I will do what you have suggested to me. But I have to ask you again how I can fix the issue about my sandbox. Best, Lucamodena (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC).
 * And sorry, I created the article. The problem is related to the sandbox. I think the draft page created is a duplex. Can you look at? Thank you, Lucamodena (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to clear your user sandbox for future use, you can go to User:Lucamodena/sandbox and at the top of the redirected page it says (Redirected from User:Lucamodena/sandbox). Clicking on the sandbox name there takes you to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lucamodena/sandbox&redirect=no, and there you can edit & clear all the content. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much David! All the best, Lucamodena (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up question to June 13th
I had asked how to create a new article and was directed to the appropriate page. I had submitted the proposal. What is the next step? Where do I look for any response? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.161.227.206 (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Your IP address has not submitted any proposal. Your only 2 edits are your 2 questions here on the Help Desk. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Lifegem
Hi I just saw on Lifegem wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeGem) page the sources are not actually correctly cited. Given this in accordance with Wikipedia's terms and conditions this is self-reporting and PR. In order to keep the integrity of Wikipedia I'd expect that this not be allowed on the site as the reference links are bogus and do not link you to actual articles. In addition to this the article entails prices and other "marketing alike" content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.148.72 (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Some links are dead but it is just WP:Link rot. Ruslik_ Zero 20:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Where exactly are the links news or not just blogs which are inherent of self-PR? The website includes a total revenue which is not actually backed up by any information (just declared). I have tried to contribute to wikipedia before and was denied even when I had relevant source material. Can we confirm this was done by an actual contributor and not someone of the company? In addition the reporting of prices on a wikipedia article is a form of advertising. Also according to Wikipedia terms and conditions article which mention company in passing are not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.148.72 (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Can someone link to me the notability of these sources? And link rot means the source material has no validity. Where are the actual records of original links to back up they ever existed in first place? It seems that Wikipedia needs to more due diligence with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.148.72 (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * At the moment, we can't save the links as the website web.archive appears to be down, but you can see the links that were in the original article so it appears the information was correct at the time it was added. I do agree some of the information was promotional like having the prices in the article, so have removed them and unreferenced information I thought not relevant to the article. The rest may need to wait until further sources are found or the web archive site is back up and running. NZFC  (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear Wiki editors,

I found this source for the Lifegem company on a forum whereby the owner "Rusty" actually refutes the claim that they utilize HTHP to create the diamonds as specified on wiki article but that instead they use CVP (Chemical Vapor Deposition). In addition the claim that they create the diamonds themselves or own (have control over) the presses is also called into question with the US patent stating they have no intellectual property control over the HTHP process (the only process in which cremated remains can be turned to diamonds).

Rusty also had his lawyer draft an email attempting to scare some of the members of the pricescope forum who were asking him basic questions such as why there is a discrepancy between their patent and their actual company literature.

Via Federal Express

Mr. Robert James

International School of Gemology

11118 Wurzbach Rd, Suite 204

San Antonio, TX 78230

Dear Mr. James:

This letter responds to your recent broadcast e-mail, a copy of which is attached, in which you discuss LifeGem’s services and patent applications.We are writing to advise you of certain facts stated in your e-mail that are not true. LifeGem is a reputable company that advertises and sells its patented services accurately and fairly and will take whatever legal measures are necessary to protect its reputation.

Statement

Response

“the LifeGem(R) folks don't say they use HPHT. They say they use "sublimation" which is a cool term for CVD.”

Your e-mails themselves recognize that this statement is not true.You state that you had a conversation with “Dean VandenBiesen. He informed me that LifeGem(R) uses the HPHT process of diamond synthesis.”We note that “HPHT” means “high pressure, high temperature.”

Also, the Lifegem patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,255,743 (your were quoting from LifeGem patent applications, one of which has issued as a patent), refers to the use of the HPHT process described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,042,673 as a method contemplated for making diamonds. See col. 1, lines 23-27 and col. 6, lines 25-31 of U.S. Patent No. 7,255,743.U.S. Pat. No. 4,042,673 indicates that it is owned by General Electric Company, a well-known maker of diamonds by the HPHT technique.

“They claim to be able to make a HUGE number of diamonds from each of your dear departed's:

high-quality LifeGem diamonds as memorials for each family if they so choose."”
 * "Our process is so streamlined, we are able to create over 100 certified,

LifeGem can make over 100 diamonds from the carbon originally present in the remains of a loved one, although they don’t claim to be able to make over 100 diamonds from an eight-ounce sample of conventional cremation ashes.This statement about what Lifegem supposedly claims is thus not true.

“Now, the LifeGem folks claim that they use "any standard cremated remains" and "*or a small portion of the remains from any standard cremation."* in their brochure. But in their patent application they say this won't work because: [0043] "*Since conventional cremation eliminates most of the native carbon,…."* ”

The cited part of the LifeGem patent application does not say that collection of carbon from conventional cremated remains “won’t work.”It says that conventional cremation eliminates “most of the native carbon.”The specification of the patent also discloses how to recover the relatively small amount of carbon remaining in conventionally cremated remains.See col. 5, line 65, to col. 6, line 9 of the patent.This statement about what Lifegem supposedly claims is thus not true.

“*"The preferred process for collection begins with the oven operator positioning the body in the oven so that the head and chest area are not positioned directly underneath the main burner. This can be accomplished by positioning the body to the left or right side of the main burner, or positioning the body so that the legs and feet are underneath the main burner rather than the head and torso. Positioning the body in this manner assures that carbon will remain in the body's head area. The carbon can then be gathered by hand, or by using a metal shovel or scoop, or the like." *

The patent identifies many ways of obtaining the carbon of a loved one.One of those ways is by modifying cremation conditions.LifeGem does not use this method, however.

Through additional development, LifeGem has discovered and patented a process for obtaining carbon of a loved one from conventionally cremated remains.This improvement allows those who want to obtain a LifeGem to make that decision days, months, or even years after their loved one has passed away and been cremated conventionally.

Thus, any statement stating or implying that Lifegem’s patent or process requires modification of cremation conditions, or doesn’t work with conventionally cremated remains, is not true.

“the actual process that they claim to use is sublimation, or Chemical Vapor Deposition.”

As indicated above, your e-mail recognizes that this statement is not true.LifeGem does not claim to use a sublimation or Chemical Vapor Deposition process to make diamonds.

“So LifeGem(R) is claiming to use sublimation deposition”

As indicated above, your e-mail recognizes that this statement is not true.LifeGem does not claim to use a sublimation deposition process to make diamonds.

“ I just have not found anyone who has compared their website and brochure claims, to their US Patent Applications. Because the two entities just do not match up.”

This statement is not true, since LifeGem uses the HPHT process to make diamonds, refers to that process on its web site, and identifies that process as a useful method in its patent applications and patent (as by citing the General Electric patent mentioned above).

“ After a great deal more research into these US Patent applications I realized that the use of the term "sublimation" was *not* a misnomer to refer to the CVD synthesis process. Instead, LifeGem(R) in fact applied for US Patents for a process claiming to make synthetic diamonds using the *sublimation method* of gemstone synthesis.”

This is not the process LifeGem patented.LifeGem’s patent does not limit itself to any particular method of diamond synthesis, and describes the HPHT process (as explained above).Thus, this statement is not true.

“ *[0037] In the preferred embodiment, the process of crystal growth from sublimation is used according to techniques of the type described but not limited to the process described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 34,061, 6,200,917, 6,025,289, 6,045,613, 4,042,673 and 5,762,896. **US* *Patent Application # 20040031434*”

The process of “U.S. Pat. No. … 4,042,673” quoted here is an HPHT process.

Thus, any statement stating or implying that Lifegem’s patent or process requires crystal growth from sublimation is not true.

“LifeGem(R) is indeed claiming to be using the *sublimation *technique”

This is not true.LifeGem’s patent and advertising claims are not limited to any particular method of diamond synthesis, and describe the HPHT process (as explained above).

Thus, any statement stating or implying that Lifegem claims to be using a sublimation technique is not true.

“their true and formal *US Patented technology* cannot make a synthetic diamond.”

This is not true, since LifeGem uses HPHT technology, which can be, and is, used to make a synthetic diamond.

“In fact, the one method of obtaining carbon from traditional cremation ashes listed on their website, is listed as not viable in their US Patent applications!*”

This is not true, as explained above.

“And their patent does not truly reflect a diamond making process by their own admission.”

This is not true, as explained above.

LifeGem notes that you can avoid many such errors in the future by recognizing that a published patent application or patent commonly describes several different ways of carrying out the invention, and does not guarantee which of them, or even that any one of them, is actually in commercial use at any given time.

Finally, you should be aware that you are violating both Federal and state laws, as well as Lifegem’s rights, by making false statements that disparage Lifegem in advertising or other commercial communications to third parties.For example, Title 15 United States Code § 1125(a)(1) specifies in relevant part::

Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—



(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities,

shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

Lifegem is watching out, both to identify the harm caused by your current e-mail and to make sure no further false statements are made about Lifegem or its products and services in e-mail or other contexts.You will be well-advised to check your facts before writing about Lifegem in the future.

Very Truly Yours,

George Wheeler McANDREW Held & Melow Ltd.

"

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/memorial-diamonds-out-of-cremains-anyone-do-this-need-info.87521/page-2

To cite "Now, the LifeGem folks claim that they use “any standard cremated remains” and “or a small portion of the remains from any standard cremation.” in their brochure. But in their patent application they say this won’t work because: [0043] “Since conventional cremation eliminates most of the native carbon,….”

Wikipedia should not allow dishonest or companies lacking transparency post articles to the website.

Wink » Jun 5, 2008 And here is the followup sent on April 2nd.

I have sent a URL for this thread to Mr. James, perhaps he will come visit and speak further with us.

"Wink

The truth is in the US Patent Applications!

LifeGem Owner claims to be using HPHT, US Patent application says otherwise!

I knew the truth was in there somewhere. Just took some time to find it. The truth about the LifeGem® program is right there in black and white inside their US Patent Applications #20030017932 and #20040031434.

After a great deal more research into these US Patent applications I realized that the use of the term “sublimation” was not a misnomer to refer to the CVD synthesis process. Instead, LifeGem® in fact applied for US Patents for a process claiming to make synthetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.148.72 (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind here, you'll see that the actual patent process claims to destroy carbon material therefore making cremation to diamond impossible. http://cremationdiamondreport.com/CremationDiamondPart1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.148.72 (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This appears you have a content dispute with the page Lifegem, the helpdesk is not the right place for this information and is better on the talk page. Saying that, the information you have provided (personal emails) are not reliable sources so you would have to provide better information. NZFC (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Page Not Uploaded
I have a draft page created ready to go and in past it got rejected and I have corrected my mistakes but no progress is seen there neither it is being rejected nor accepted. So I was hoping for any kinda information related to it ? link :--> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mr._Beat_Singh  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muskan. Sehgal (talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You did not fix the problem of notability. That was the reason it was declined, not "mistakes."  You have not cited any professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are not dependent on or affiliated with the subject.  You need to do that.
 * If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here's the steps you should follow:
 * 1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.
 * 2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.
 * 3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.
 * 4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.
 * 5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.
 * 6) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.
 * 7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).
 * Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)