Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 662

How to Reactivate Wikipedia Page that has been wrongfully blocked?
I have previously contributed to the Wikipedia page for an international non-governmental organization called the Federation of Interior Architects/Designers (IFI), which was founded in 1963. An abusive Wikipedia editor named Huon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Huon) has reversed my edits and now disabled the page! As an international nonprofit, we have limited funds and Wikipedia is one of the primary ways we can communicate with our international audience and grow awareness for the cause we represent (design advocacy). Rather than verifying the organization and the information contributed to Wikipedia by actually doing research (as easy as going to our website - ifiworld.org - clearly delineated on the Wikipedia page - or using google - we are referenced in The Encyclopedia of the Industrial Revolution in World History, v. III by Kenneth E. Hendrickson III), Huon shut the page down entirely.

I was under the impression that Wikipedia has a checks and balances system in place--that smart people are paid to verify information and do good research to make sure that such abuse of power does not happen. I am left to question the ethics of Wikipedia when editors are targeting nonprofit contributors whose primary mission is to make the world a better place...

What is more is that there appears to be no clear or effective way to combat or complain about people like Huon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Huon) who have been given the power to edit information but don't have the will or skills to verify it.

If anyone can give some insight into how to reactive this page, I would really appreciate it. This organization is very important to me and I have long been involved in helping advance the mission. Thanks for reading this post.

Ynejdawi (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ynejdawi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry you're having trouble with your page, but I'm afraid you have some misconceptions about what Wikipedia is and how it works. Wikipedia is not a place for any third party organization to communicate or grow awareness; Wikipedia is not for promotion or advocacy of a cause, regardless of how good or noble the cause may be. Wikipedia also has no system of paid editors; all of us here are purely volunteers, and in fact paid editing is strongly discouraged, in accordance with Wikipedia's non-promotional nature.
 * All that said, I think you're confused; the The International Federation of Interior Architects/Designers article that you've edited is still available and open for editing. Huon has never edited that page, so you're mistaken about their actions. Can you be more specific about the issues you're experiencing? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Far from being an "abusive editor", Huon is one of Wikipedia's respected administrators. He was involved in discussions after the user account IFIstaff was blocked because of being an invalid user name (see WP:CORPNAME, & User talk:DorianHawkmoon).  --David Biddulph (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . To start out, the article The International Federation of Interior Architects/Designers is live at this time. Was there another article under a different title? You seem to have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is all about. First of all, we have a behavioral guideline called assume good faith. You have accused of "abuse of power" without presenting any evidence. I suggest that you either produce such evidence or withdraw that charge. You are also incorrect in your assumption that there are people who are paid by Wikipedia to verify information. This is a volunteer project and Wikipedia has no paid staffers to do that sort of work. None. Wikipedia does not have more lenient standards for articles about non-profit organizations than for profit-making businesses. All articles are expected to comply with our policies and guidelines, and volunteers like Huon work to bring articles into compliance. This particular article has been subjected to repeated attempts to add highly promotional content that does not comply with the neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. This material is more appropriate for the group's website or brochures than in a neutral encyclopedia article. Your comments above make it clear that you have a conflict of interest, and you should limit yourself to posting suggested changes at Talk: The International Federation of Interior Architects/Designers at this time. And please stop attacking other editors. Thank you. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  15:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This message is... interesting. Ynejdawi, I have not reverted any of your edits nor "disabled the page". I have not edited the article in question at all, nor have I, to my knowledge, interacted with you before. What I have done is decline an unblock request for the former User:IFIstaff (see User talk:DorianHawkmoon) and rather bluntly expressed concerns about the factual accuracy of their edits. I was, in effect, acting as part of that "checks and balances" system you were asking for. If you want to "combat" me, the place to raise your concerns is WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; given the errors of fact in your accusations about me, you may want to take a look at WP:BOOMERANG first. I'll also note that you quite openly admit that you're trying to use Wikipedia as a means of communication with your audience and as a tool to grow awareness. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not social media; I suggest you use Facebook or LinkedIn instead. Huon (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

How to edit sub-titles & background pictures that appear in Wikipedia app
Hello,

I'm wondering how to edit the sub-titles that appear in the Wikipedia app. Some articles have short, sensible ones like "Aspect of history" while others have ludicrously long sub-titles that are taken nearly verbatim from part of the lead. Others have no sub-title at all. I cannot find them in the article text anywhere.

I also have a related question, which is how to add an image that will appear in the background when a page is searched on the app. Articles with an image in the infobox show that image, and some articles seem to show an image from the box for their series, but some show no image at all.

Hopefully this makes sense. Thanks! Gazelle55 (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Could you give us a link to an example?  You may perhaps find the troublesome text in Wikidata.  Unfortunately there are more and more instances of pages in the English Wikipedia being garbled by information from Wikidata.  --David Biddulph (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See FAQ/Editing and mw:Extension:PageImages. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Can I develop a page for my football team?
I manage a football team in New Zealand which has been in existence for 37 years. We have a huge array of statistics for all 648 games we've played, goal scorers, assists, penalties, own goals, were there nets and flags on the day, etc.

I've created a mock up using the Tottenham Hotspurs football club as a starting point to see if we have sufficient information, and I can pretty much replicate all the salient points with our own team information.

Cheers, Glenn150.107.173.180 (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We discourage users from editing pages relating to subjects they have connections with -- see WP:Conflict of interest.
 * We also forbid promotional editing -- see WP:NOTPROMO.
 * Someone who is not affiliated with your team could create a page by summarizing, paraphrasing, and citing multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of and unaffiliated with your team.
 * "That other team has a page" is not a valid argument, even if it is common enough that we've got a page on it. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Glenn, what club are you interested in creating and what sources do you have. I'm always interested in helping Football pages on Wiki and of course New Zealand Football pages. You can leave a message on my talk page User talk:NZ Footballs Conscience NZ Footballs Conscience  (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Styleguide
Hello,

I just edited a page yesterday and kept on adding sections and minor edits. Should I have waited and submitted everything in one edit or was I right to try to add in smaller chunks? Cheers, HerrHartmuth (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I myself am a this-looks-better/this-looks-better/this-looks-better sort of editor and no yet has thrown a WikiRock at my head. I'd say that as long as your edits are not a means of increasing your life-count of edits, no harm in being an incrementalist. David notMD (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer to save after each significant edit (such as adding some content and its citation). Partially, that practice derived from learning the importance of frequent saving in my early days of using computers. More importantly, however, edit summaries can be more precise that way. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

How can we get "Legendary Myths Web Series" entry up and not be rejected again?
Hi.

Curb Safe Charmer said: This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of websites and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

I have seen much less notability pages on here that have been accepted for inclusion and just need to figure out specifically the types of links you are asking for. They may not exist and we need to figure out a way to get this up.

Thanks for all your help on this.

Cheers, Dan Treaty6Prod (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. The notice at the top of your draft and the notices on your user page include many words in blue indicating that they are wikilinks to pages with more detailed advice.  When you have read them, if there is something specific that you don't understand, please feel free to ask further questions.  You may have encountered existing iarticles which don't belong here, as they may not have been properly scrutinised when they were written.  The existence of unsuitable articles is not a reason for creating more of the same, see WP:Other stuff exists. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Please point out those other pages so I can delete them. You need to cite some professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources which are specifically about Legendary Myths Web Series but still independent of and unaffiliated with it.  Things like newspaper articles.  That's what determines notability.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Hello and welcome. I would ask you if your username is that of an organization; if so you need to change it as the Username policy does not permit such usernames. A name in the format of "YourName of Treaty6Prod" would be acceptable; please click on WP:CHU for instructions on changing your name. If you are associated with this series, please read the conflict of interest policy (click WP:COI to access) as well as the paid editing policy(WP:PAID).
 * Regarding the page, it will need independent reliable sources indicating how the web series is meets notability guidelines (WP:WEB). It is true that there may be other similar pages, as Wikipedia is a volunteer effort; other things exist.  Each page is judged on its own merits.  If you have further questions, please ask. 331dot (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I noticed by reading your draft that this web series has not yet premiered. Such media productions most commonly become notable only after they are reviewed by independent media with professional editorial control. That usually happens, if at all, only after the series premieres.


 * There well may be articles about less notable series which have escaped scrutiny. If you mention them, then perhaps other editors will either improve them or delete them. Their existence is no argument for creating another non-compliant article.


 * You commented "we need to figure out a way to get this up." I am sorry, but no we don't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we have policies and guidelines. Other people's commercial interests are of no interest at all to Wikipedia editors. This draft article will be accepted only if you can show that the topic is notable, as Wikipedia defines that term. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

can I change my username?
Can I change my username? My name is misspelled. Rudra Protap Chackraborty (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Please read Changing your username for complete instructions. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Writing how I developed a new area of law which is now used all over the UK.
Hi

Re Writing how I developed a new area of law which is now used all over the UK.

I'm trying to write an article - Business and commercial lasting powers of attorney - setting out how I developed this area of law, where it came from and why so many UK solicitors now use it. It's a brief historical account of how I arrived at business lasting powers of attorney. I'm a solicitor and researcher and author of the Law Society's textbook on Lasting Powers of Attorney. The first time I wrote it I got some helpful comments, then it got deleted without helpful comments. Suggestions please.

Craig Ward, Baron of Lundie.

CEdward1 (talk) 06:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to write about yourself, . An encyclopedia is made up of information on a given subject, paraphrased and summarized, that is available in reliable sources, totally independent of the subject. It isn't the place to publish your original research. If no one other than yourself has written in detail about your work, in reliable sources totally independent of yourself, your work cannot be covered here. If your work has been covered in multiple sources, almost anyone would be better suited to write an encyclopedia article about it than you. John from Idegon (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and so is not the place to publicise a book or how someone came to write it. Your book is already used as a reference in Lasting power of attorney, and is obviously a respected source, but we would only have an article about it if the book itself has been written about in independent WP:Reliable sources. I haven't investigated whether or not this is the case.   D b f i r s   06:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

For proficient markup code users - Link grouping. Is this correct and is there a related guideline/example?
Rather than remove an over-referenced statement in an article to remove a citekill tag, I have used some markup to add a group of citations in the following manner on the page Rocky Marciano. I've seen this type of link "bundling" used on some other pages and attempted to replicate the effect, in an area where the number of citations seemed valid to justify the magnitude of the statement. The code looks like this

His knockout-to-win percentage of 87.75 remains one of the highest in heavyweight boxing history.

Edaham (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have seen that done in multiple places. As a way to avoid citation overkill, it does make the article text read better while still fulfilling the requirement for references. Whether it is "correct" or not might have to be discussed formally at an RfC. As I understand it, "correct" would be to select the two (maybe three) best references and drop the remainder.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  07:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am wondering if it might cause link rot issues as the links are overlooked by URL-auto-formatting tools like reFill etc. Can the cite web template be used within this style of formatting... let's see. Edaham (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Answer is yes - it can. Would the second example be preferable? Edaham (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There's absolutely no reason why you can't use a series of cite web or whichever citation templates you like in this context. As for reFill, we'll have to see what results you get from your experiment. I suspect it will work. And, yes, I prefer to see citation templates over all other allowed forms of referencing.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  07:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your confirmation. Have a great day! Edaham (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Trump trips
For the map where the entire state is colored in, Arizona isnt colored in for two visits. Is there a way to change this?Vinnylospo (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome back to the Teahouse, . Please mention specific articles by their exact name. We have no article called Trump trips and I am reasonably sure that you mean List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump. Arizona is now colored in. The proper place to discuss specific changes to this article is Talk:List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * He visited two Arizona cities on the same day without leaving the state. I agree with commons:File:Domestic trips made by Donald Trump in 2017.svg that this should only be counted as one visit to Arizona. The map can only be updated by making a new image offline and uploading it as a new version of the file. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Please, revert my edits.
Hey there, I was editing the page "Government Science College Attached High School". But suddenly all of my edits were removed by verified users. And the cause they showed is unsourced contents. But that's not true. All of my edits were real. I was a student of that school and I have a yearbook of my school. All the information I gave was from that book. And it's an official book from the school. Please take care this matter and if you need any prove I will give it to you. Radoan Sharkar (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome. Primary sources like a school's own yearbook may be acceptable sources in some cases, such as uncontroversial information like a location or staff, but primary sources in general are not enough to sustain an article.  Wikipedia is not interested in what an article subject says about itself, but on what others say about it.  Wikipedia wants independent reliable sources to support article content.  Looking at your edits I'm not sure things like details about the school uniform and a daily assembly(common things in many schools around the world) would merit inclusion, unless they are discussed in independent sources like newspapers or TV. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Using primary source to cite a demonstrable fact
I'm working on an edit to include the statement "On August 8, 2010, [investigative journalist] launched a blog detailing the progression of his investigation." Is it acceptable to link directly to the first post of his blog as a source?

Leslieinlouisville (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Leslieinlouisville. When you say "directly", do you mean by an embedded raw link in the text, or an inline citation? The latter is, mechanically, how we cite sources to verify content. (See also: Help:Referencing for beginners and WP:CITEHOW.) As to propriety of citing that source, please read the policy at WP:PRIMARY and the supplementary essay at WP:PRIMARYCARE. In short, primary sources can only be used for straightforward statements of fact, and cannot be used for any evaluation, synthesis or interpretation. A date of a blog's launch, if that is confirmed by that source, is a fairly straightforward fact. So the question becomes, does that first blog post directly verify that sentence's information content? Or does it happen to be his first blog post, without detail that it is the first blog post, on the date you write in the proposed sentence, of the investigation you detail? If the former, it would seem okay to cite, assuming including that detail fits within the encyclopedic scope of what should be included within the article. If the latter, it would be a cite that does not actually verify the content, and the sentence would be forbidden original research. Sources need to directly corroborate the information they are placed to verify. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverting edits
The page Castello del Catajo has three edits by User:DeadRancher that seem to be pure mischief. When attempting to undo the edits I get the message "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually." Since I'm not comfortable doing that, is there another option?

TimeForLunch (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome. If you are not comfortable doing it manually, the only other thing you could do is compare the edits in the edit history and then undo them- which may not work if the intervening edits conflict with it.  In that situation you could simply post on the article talk page your concerns about the edits you see as problematic and ask a more experienced user to examine them. That said, looking at the edits I'm not clear on how exactly they are mischief. They appear to have only added information and other coding to the page.  331dot (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The user is User:Deadrancher, remembering that case is significant. There is some cause for the suspicion from the OP.  None of the user's edis are sourced.  Some of them, including to the article referred to here, included a link to Adalwulf Mustang and I can find no evidence of the existence of such a person. Similarly additions referring to House of Raeder-Este, of which I can again find no evidence.  --David Biddulph (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the clarification. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi TimeForLunch. In that case, you can do a manual revert. Very simple: go to the edit history → click on the date before the person's post → click edit → leave a rich edit summary as to why you're reverting → click save. The undo function is just an easy but highly limited method of the far more powerful manual revert that every user has at their disposal. On the other hand, if there are edits after the user whose edits you are reverting, what you can do is: open up two tabs. In the second tab, look at the diff of just the edits that were added after the ones you want to revert. Then, upon reverting (through the second tab), before the last step, copy and paste the good changes from the diff in the other tab. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for the suggestions. Next time around I'll know what to do. TimeForLunch


 * As it was, the only subsequent edit was a minor edit by a bot, fixing formatting problems associated with the suspect edits in question, so it made sense just to go back to where it was before Deadrancher's edits. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Editing infobox on page
Hello Teahouse friends,

I hope you're well. I'm trying to edit the infobox on Adam Spencer's page, to add in his new/current relationship. I feel like this has sort of worked (to an extent) in the background but doesn't seem to be translating through on the page. Am I using the incorrect field? I have tried "Partner", and also to add another line to "Spouse/s". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Spencer

With many thanks SunnyBoi (talk) 09:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Parameters are listed at Template:Infobox presenter; remember that parameter names are case-sensitive. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)]

Thank you David!!! You fixed it, I didn't realise about lower case, sigh! SunnyBoi SunnyBoi (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia page
Dear Wikipedia editors,

I am an employee of Gelvenor Textiles (www.gelvenor.co.za), I wish to submit information to Wikipedia about our international company and would like assistance in creating a Wikipedia page for Gelvenor Textiles, however since I am an employee I feel that it would be biased if I had to write the article. Therefore I would like to request assistance from the Wikipedia editors to help in creating the page. I will submit the information and the reference links in order to create a Wikipedia page for Gelvenor Textiles.

I look forward to hearing from youCoetzee07 (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome. You are correct that it would be problematic for you to create an article about your own company; this is what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest, which I would ask you to read about by clicking WP:COI. As you are an employee, you will also need to read WP:PAID and comply with the policy there before further edits.
 * Please note that Wikipedia is not a website meant to just list and describe companies; as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is more selective about its content. Article subjects need to be shown with independent reliable sources to meet the relevant notability guidelines, in this case WP:ORG(click those links to review).  Wikipedia is not interested in what a company or person says about themselves, but on what third parties state about it.  If you have independent reliable sources that show how your company is notable, and truly believe you can write about it in a neutral point of view(which would be uncommon, but possible), you could create a page by visiting Articles for Creation to submit a draft for an independent review.  That's likely the only way you would be permitted to edit about your own company; it is really best to allow others to write about it. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also note that having a Wikipedia article about your company is not necessarily a good thing(that link is about people, but the principle is the same). Anyone can edit the article, you cannot lock it to the text you or your company might prefer to have there, and information, good or bad, can be in the article as long as it appears in an independent reliable sources. Please keep this in mind. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For an example of a company profile article the company is NOT pleased with, see "Mannatech." David notMD (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sources like this are the goldstandard. Find two more like that and you have a good case for creating an article. (WP:GNG) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete article for privacy reasons?
I'm just wondering if WP has any guidelines to delete an article for privacy reasons? For instance if a notable person which is mentioned at WP wants the deletion of the article about him or her. How can he handle this? I suppose this question came up already several times, in a time where 'privacy' is considered a very important issue. Of course privacy is and will be always important. So I'm wondering about the guidelines for this at WP. If there is existence of such WP guidelines could anybody show me this please? (ClrView (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome.  Personal information like contact information and personal identification information(like a Social Security Number) can and should be removed, and libelous information also can and should be be removed, but if it is just a matter of the article subject not wanting an article about themselves on Wikipedia, I think there is little that can be done. As long as information in an article appears in a publicly available independent reliable source, it generally can be in a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , If there is personal information you should follow the directions at Oversight to have it removed. ~ GB fan 12:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * If a no-questions-about-it WP:NOTABLE article-subject wants an article gone because of what boils down to I-don´t-like-it reasons, there´s not much to be done. If the subject is more borderline notable, WP:BIODEL can help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * because Wikipedia articles may never contain any information that has not already been published before, it is very difficult to argue that privacy could even be a valid reason for deleting an entire article. If someone absolutely does not ever want an article about them on Wikipedia, then that person must never say, do, or become involved in, anything that attracts the attention of journalists, scholars or other professional writers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

How do I create a new page of info.
I am the author of Breakup Rehab and I want to submit info about it. To create a new page. RebekahMFreedom (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome. It is strongly advised that you not create a page about something you are associated with.  You would have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest(click on WP:COI to learn more about it).  This means that it would be difficult for you to have a neutral point of view about your book.  Wikipedia is not a forum for publicizing a book(see WP:PROMO), but is an encyclopedia where article subjects must be shown with independent reliable sources to be notable.  Wikipedia is not interested in what an article subject(or its author) says about itself, but what others say about it.  If you truly believe that you can do that, you may visit Articles for Creation to draft an article which can be reviewed before it is posted.  That's likely the only way you would be permitted to write about your own book.  It's usually best to let others write about such a subject, which usually is an indication it has the required notability.
 * Before even attempting to do that, however, you should read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding additional distinguishing titles to article name
I would like to know whether it is common and recommended to add additional distinguishing titles to article names. In other words, I am working on Aaron Wolf (Director, and because of his acting credits, I have considered adding 'actor' to his Wikipedia article name. Is this recommended and can article names be adjusted? Thanks in advance for your help. Bailey Rae (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Bailey Rae. The relevant guidance is at WP:NCPDAB, although it doesn't precisely address your question. However, one of the guiding principles for disambiguation is that it should usually be no more specific than is necessary to specify one topic as distinct from another. So, for example, Aaron Wolf (director, writer, actor, producer, amateur model train enthusiast) should probably not be used unless there is an Aaron Wolf (director, writer, actor, producer) who happens to not be an amateur model train enthusiast, and the extra qualifier is necessary to distinguish the two. Even then, article titles usually default to date of birth/death when a single parenthetical disambiguation is not sufficient.


 * Overall, it's probably best to just go with whatever the person is best known for. After all, one of the main reasons for disambiguation is that the software (also "the internet") requires that each page be located at a unique title.


 * Other than that, there are a few other issues with the article. The image is... suspiciously high quality, and I'm very surprised that it's not available on the internet already. But I can't at this point actually demonstrate that it's a copyright violation. The article currently contains a number of external links in the body, which are not allowed, and need to be either converted into refs where appropriate (e.g., IMDB is not a reliable source and should not be converted into a reference), or they should be removed. The language in the article also needs to be toned down. For example, industry jargon like "award-winning" and "Academy Awards-nominee" should basically never appear in any article ever. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * TimothyJosephWood this is all extremely helpful. Thank you! Bailey Rae (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Spelling and grammar improvements
Is there a project, as such, which focuses on global correction of incorrect spelling or poor grammar? For example, sitewide correction of "recieve" to "receive". I'd be interested in helping out because there are undoubtedly common mistakes which frequently recur. Thanks.  Cravin Chillies  18:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is the Typo Team, which does exactly what you are interested in. Poor grammar probably relates more to WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. Thank you, Finnusertop. All the best.  Cravin Chillies  19:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Content Deleted. Not Allowed to Edit Here
New research in national archives revealed new information and images of document on a historical event related to Israel/Palestinian conflict and published on researcher's website. I added the information to the relevant Wikipedia page providing references and uploading the new image.

My contribution go deleted after 3 hours with the message "delete original research from unreliable source. also you are not allowed here per WP:ARBPIA3"

1. How can I prove the source is reliable so it will be accepted?

2. What is WP:ARBPIA3 exactly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3

3. Why am I not allowed to edit in that article?

Thanks Tomerto69 (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Tomerto69 (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse,.


 * 1. The David Collier website is a one man operation. He may be a wonderful person with interesting things to say, but such a website will never be accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia for factual statements. It can be used only to cite Collier's opinions in cases where his personal opinion is of encyclopedic value. The Reliable sources noticeboard is the place to determine whether or not a given source is acceptable.


 * 2. WP:ARBPIA3 is one in a series of rulings by Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee concerning editor behavior regarding the Arab-Israel conflict. Unsurprisingly, that has been the source of great conflict on Wikipedia as well. The Arbitration Committee is our highest body for resolving such conflicts.


 * 3. According to ARBPIA3, "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." Since you are far short of 500 edits and your account is only a couple of days old, you are not currently allowed to edit articles or other pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.


 * I suggest that you spend a month or more making 500 or more productive edits to articles concerning much less contentious topics. Also, seriously study our policies and guidelines. You will then be much better prepared to participate in developing consensus for changes to articles about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * , these restrictions are here to serve to both protect the encyclopedia and to protect you. In highly contentious areas such as (but not limited to) The Arab/Israeli struggles, the "Troubles" (the catholic protestant struggle in N. Ireland), and  American politics, tensions are always high and noobie screw-ups simply will not be tolerated.  Therefore, to avoid getting yourself blocked as well as to protect difficult topics from unneeded disruptions, it was decided that these certain topics (and others) would be restricted to editors with at least some experience. John from Idegon (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyrighted military logos(?)
Hey folks.

So, I've been working on and off on pages related to the Sri Lankan military, and I noticed there's quite a few pages with medals and awards and stuff that don't have images of the medal bars (things like ). When you go through the images that are up on commons and the wikipages, you find that different users have uploaded them with different licenses, some claiming own work, some claiming some version of CC, and some claiming public domain. I looked up that last bit, and I can't find anything in Sri Lankan law, at least, that releases military honours and logos into the public domain.

I've been thinking about making pages for all the medals/awards listed on the first page I linked to here, and making medal bars on my own, in essence copying the images the Sri Lankan Army, Navy and Air Force have on their official websites (see links below). What I'm confused about here is:

1. are the images on the pages down below copyrighted? I know Wikipedia treats simple logos as being non-copyrightable by virtue of US law, but do these fit into the definition of a 'logo'? Could I just take them straight off these pages and put them on Wikipedia?

2. If I do opt for making my own versions (retaining the same design and colours, obviously), what license would I file them under? Do I even have the right to make my own versions? Should the ones already up be removed for copyright violation?

3. Images of the medals themselves- I don't know anyone that's in a position to photograph all the medals the military offers, and I doubt any request to do so will be entertained by the military, although I'm sure it could be tried. But would the images of the medals pulled off these sites be eligible for fair use, seeing as the point of the medal wiki pages is to inform readers about what's essentially a very visual object/topic?

Wasn't sure where else to ask, so I thought I'd do it here.

Links: Army medals Air force (this page has the ribbon bars. The other two seem to only contain images of the medals themselves Navy

- ක - (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Ooookay - ක -. This one is a doozy. So, logos basically fall into two categories: A) Ones that are too simple to meet the Threshold for Originality and are therefore in principle not copyright-able at all, and B) those that are used on Wikipedia as fair use, according to our Non-Free Content Criteria (See also Non-free content). On the face of it, these medals are probably too complex to qualify for the first. But would almost certainly qualify for the second.


 * As to medals, in the case of the US government, official awards and decorations are actually used in a completely different way all together. According to US law, official works of the US government are by default in the public domain. As to whether works of the Sri Lankan government have similar rules, that's probably a better question to ask at Help Desk, since they have much more collective experience dealing with comparatively complex international copyright laws.


 * Finally, reproducing the work yourself doesn't actually solve any of these issues. If your personal creation is sufficiently original to qualify for its own copyright, then it probably wouldn't be recognizable. If however it is a faithful reproduction of the original, then the original copyright still applies. It's not about who made the .jpg file, it's about who originally made "the likeness" so-to-speak. A good artist can create their own .png file of Mickey Mouse, but the "likeness" of Mickey Mouse is still owned by Disney, and so would the "likeness" in that .png file.


 * Hopefully this helps and doesn't confuse things more than they already were. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Timothyjosephwood! Thanks for the reply.


 * The medals themselves I would admit, seem like they'd need a bit more digging vis-a-vis the Community help page. The way I understand your comment, taking pics of the medals off the websites could be justified for by fair use, but I'd have to check copyright laws just to be sure.


 * I do notice you didn't address the question about those little ribbon bars though. What do I do with those? They're essentially just rectangular bits of colour.
 * - ක - (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Dang you're quick - ක - No sooner had I posted this then I found Copyright rules by territory which I probably should have looked for first... but ... I really couldn't definitively tell you what the legal speak actually means in everyday practice.


 * As to the ribbons, they're definitely too simple to meet the threshold of originality, and can certainly be uploaded to commons with Commons:Template:PD-shape. But on the others it's the fancy metal bits at the bottom that cause the problem, and unless you can get a better answer regarding the applicability of Sri Lanken copyright over government works, they will probably have to uploaded to Wikipedia under fair use. Fair use is a slam dunk, but you would have to check copyright laws in order to tell if they're definitely not under copyright at all and could therefore be uploaded to Commons instead of Wikipedia, so that they could be used by editors on Wikipedias in every language, and not just in English. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me? How on earth can I sleep soundly knowing there's complex copyright issues being discussed this very moment on Wikipedia?


 * I'll have a look through that copyright page. I knew the exception on legislative works, but I wonder if that covers military insignia too. Brb starting course in copyright law.


 * And thanks for letting me know about the ability to upload directly to Wikipedia. I was under the impression one always had to upload to commons then link to here?


 * Just one more thing- these ribbons are used on a metric buttload of pages. Do I have the ability to "update" the existing image pages to new, more consistently designed ribbons, or do I have to go through every page that uses these ribbons and manually link the new images in?


 * Thanks again for all this. - ක - (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * - ක -: Brb starting course in copyright law. Yeeeeeaaahhh... That's basically where this eventually ends up. Can't say you weren't warned.


 * The main difference between Wikipedia (specifically en.wiki) and Commons is that the former accepts fair use, and the latter does not. But the things on en.wiki can only be used on en.wiki (and would need to be re-uploaded on fr.wiki, de.wiki, etc.), while the things on Commons can be used everywhere.


 * As to the replacement, that may be solve-able using auto wiki browser and you may have to ask there to get a definitive answer (or consider logging on to their IRC channel). Also that depends on what you mean by "metric buttload". On Wikipedia, this usually means hundreds or thousands of pages, and probably means that it's a better job for a bot (see Bot requests). Otherwise, something like AWD or manual editing can usually suffice, even if it's an inconvenience. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Assistance in Prepping My Article for Approval
I am currently working on a non-biased article about a company that has meant a lot to those of us in the software and hardware engineering field. I always felt like they should be included in Wikipedia as they have established notability and they have created designs that have become jargon amongst our community. I have read some help pages on Wikipedia, as well as completing the tutorial (fun stuff!).

I understand that Wikipedia has a lot of guidelines, and I would really appreciate it if an established editor(s) could take me under their wing in collaboration with this article.

Any advice, tips, (polite) commentary would be greatly appreciated!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:OpenBuilds

Thanks in advance! Langley242 (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Langley242. The advice you been given in the reviewer comments pretty much sums it up.


 * The references do not demonstrate that the company meets our standards for notability, which requires sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources.
 * The entire draft reads pretty much like what you would expect from a corporate website, and not from an encyclopedia article. Things like: has been iconic, Dream it - Build it - Share it!, company's goal, help to make the world a better place are totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, and that's just in the lead. It gets arguably worse in the (completely uncited) history section, and much worse in the products and youtube section which are both essentially bald faced advertisements.
 * I realize that's not terribly uplifting advice, but unless it's fixed, you article is pretty much guaranteed not to be published. You may want to also consider reviewing our policies on conflicts of interest in the case you have an outside connection with the subject, which seems likely given the tone of the draft. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Timothyjosephwood. Thank you for your response.

I definitely would not consider my position as one with a conflict of interest, which is why I am attempting to write this article. Now, the YouTube and Products section were drafted after another technology company that has a "published" Wikipedia article. Those can be removed. You have given good tips (while coming across as a bit haughty for some reason, I am sorry if this is offensive it is just the general vibe I got "arguably worse" "much worse") and I will be sure to follow them! I would appreciate it if you could take a look at my revision when it is completed. Let me know! Thanks Langley242 (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You will make the job of a future reviewer easier if you provide inline citations, see Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, David! I will work on that and read the article. Langley242 (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My bad. Some days it seems like I look through ... just dozens of promotional articles and drafts. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Timothyjosephwood. No worries! I understand that you guys are just trying to keep Wikipedia legitimate and I bet that is hard work. Again, I would greatly appreciate it if you could take a look after I have finished revision. I am adding in-line citation, (more acceptable sources) and taking out any sections or phrasing that seems to shed a favorable light on the company versus a neutral, informative based narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Langley242 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries Langley242. Feel free to drop a comment on my talk page when you think you're done. Timothy Joseph Wood  20:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Review My Draft?
I am currently working on a non-biased article about a company that has meant a lot to those of us in the software and hardware engineering field. I always felt like they should be included in Wikipedia as they have established notability and they have created designs that have become jargon amongst our community.

I previously asked for some guidance regarding my article and have received a lot of (much appreciated) guidance. My article submission was declined recently, however, the reviewer left me a nice comment about how I should add in some more references for the facts being stated in the article. I found around 5-7 additional independent, reputable sources and have included some as in-line citation and some simply as references because while they are valid sources about the notability of the subject of my article, I am afraid of producing "too much" in-line citation and making the page look cluttered and confusing.

I understand that Wikipedia has a lot of guidelines, and I would really appreciate it if an established editor(s) could offer up any additional advice, tips, (polite) commentary etc. now that I have updated my draft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:OpenBuilds

Thanks in advance! Langley242 (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . You still need refs for the two bottom sections of the article, as it has none and all content has to be sourced. If you have 5 or 7 more refs, don't worry about it looking cluttered; it won't. Just go ahead and add them, which will help prove the company is notable. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . You say you are working on a "non-biased article". Promotional language and content is a form of bias. Sure, intent plays a role—a person whose intent is to promote is virtually certain to write promotionally. Nevertheless, in my view the draft reads like an advertisement, regardless of your intent. Is OpenBuilds "responsible for building solutions such as the OpenRail Linear Rail..." or did it, say, "manufacture a product called OpenRail Linear Rail..."? Have its "parts and solutions" really been "implemented by companies such as Google"? Are you trying to say that Google has purchased some parts from it? Used its systems in X Ynd Z? Something else? Google is a major customer? I'm not sure this detail belongs at all, but the way it's said is unnatural marketing speak. When coupled with its vagueness, it leaves me with possibly unwarranted questioning of whether this is puffery. If, for example, the juggernaut that is Google hired the company to design some item to house a Google product in a real financial relationship, or used its products for the machines on one of its assembly plants or... some other non-trivial matter, that would probably warrant mention in that company's article. If Google used the product in some minor way, mentioning that in any way in an article on the company as Google implementing its products would be misleading, falsely grandiose... I have no idea which it is from the detail in the article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The uses of "such as" and "solution" in the draft suggest that it was written by a PR person who doesn't know what the company produces, but has the duty of promoting it. Maproom (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments White Arabian Filly and Fuhghettaboutit. I read about those companies on the company website, but you are right that it does need to be sourced and relevant or else not included at all. Also, Maproom I have to say that I am not sure what a "PR" person for a company does, let alone be one. What is their salary like? Maybe I can look into it. ;) In all seriousness, I am simply trying to write an informative, non-biased page about an interesting topic.

persons
From where can we find any person? And can we send them a friend request??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanan khalid (talk • contribs) 09:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome. I assume that you are asking about Wikipedia; please understand that Wikipedia is not social media where users send friend requests to each other.  We are all here to work on this encyclopedia.  Social media activities should take place on actual social media websites, like Facebook. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Captain Ravee, wiki page submission issue
Hi, I am trying hard to create a page on wikipedia for a retired army man who is now a successful entrepreneur in security service sector. He is an expert in security and have appeared in various talk shows on television. Please help me in publishing this page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Captain_Ravee.Devansh0043 (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. In the messages in the feedback boxes on your draft, and on your user talk page, the words in blue are wikilinks to detailed advice.  When you've read that advice, please ask if you have specific questions. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * if this draft is ever to be accepted as an article, it will need to establish that Ravee is notable, by citing several reliable independent published sources that discuss him. At present it cites no sources at all. It does list some references, but most of them are not independent, and the others don't mention him. Unless you can find some acceptable references, time spent on this draft is likely to be wasted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maproom (talk • contribs) 12:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Advice about draft page
My page has been rejected three times, although I think I've met the requirements to show notability. All links and cited material are external to the subject, even though some of the material on those external pages is interview material with the subject.

The subject is me, which I understand is discouraged, but not forbidden. I believe I've met the criteria for ensuring that the page is reliable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brent_van_Staalduinen

Brentvans (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. One thing which would make life easier for any future reviewer would be if you were to expand the bare URLs to make it more obvious who has published the documents which you are citing as references. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To fill in the urls, you can use either the Citation templates or try ReFill. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 15:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Alessandro Safina
Someone added content and a "Personal Life" section to the article. I wanted to rename the link "Marriage, Divorce and Sons" because it's a very long link. I've tried the suggestions in the on how to do this, it doesn't seem to work. Any ideas? It's the very long link (ref 12)from a Romanian magazine. Thanks for your help! GrammerCracker96 (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrammerCracker96 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is Alessandro Safina, the title of the article cited is "Tenorul italian Alessandro Safina şi-a botezat zilele trecute, la Târgovişte, copilul pe care îl are cu o româncă". Claiming that it's called "Marriage, Divorce and Sons" would be misleading. Shortening it would probably be acceptable, but I don't know enough Romanian to do that competently. Maproom (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Maproom thank you,the added content is solely about Safina's first marriage, divorce and sons. The article does translate into English. The link looks messy, as does ref 13. I added 13 today to give more creedance to 12. I would like suggestions if, and how I should clean these links up. It might be worth noting that the entire section, added with the 12 ref, was an anonymous post. Then again, it might not be. GrammerCracker96 (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I would say that reference 12 is actually formatted much more closely to the ideal standard than any of the other references used in the article. The others lack key details (dates, publishers, etc.). Please see Help:Referencing for beginners for guidance. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * @Cordless Larry, I had previously been directed to a Wiki link that only showed me how to rename the long links. I appreciate the info! GrammerCracker96 (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If by name you mean the title, then you should use the title that appears on the source,, not attempt to shorten it. Perhaps I have misunderstood what you mean by "name", though. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The information you directed me to is exactly what I need. Thank you again. I am currently editing my previous reference mistakes. GrammerCracker96 (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)