Removal of an existing article -- Family Scholar House
I'm a volunteer for Family Scholar House, Louisville, Kentucky, USA. The executive director has asked me to see that the organization's Wikipedia page is removed.
Your executive director seems to be under some misunderstandings about Wikipedia. You don't own the article: it belongs to the people who wrote it, who have in turn licensed it for public use via the Wikimedia Foundation. Why would the article be removed?
You generally should not be editing content on a page about your organization. In fact, you ought to read Wikipedia's position on conflict of interest before you even touch the article. If information in the current article is incorrect, then you could start a discussion on the article's talk page with links to corrected information, and someone else could then assess the changes that are needed. --Orange Mike | Talk19:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
You asked the same question back on February 20; this is what you were told then, and it all applies now:
Hi Dug. Since the article appears to have no independent sources (and therefore is unlikely to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guideline) deletion is a definite possibility. The most appropriate course of action would be for you to email the OTRS team at info-en@wikimedia.org and make this request; someone there will then list the page at Articles for deletion and a discussion will be held on whether or not it should be kept. If the resulting consensus is deletion, the article will be removed.
Alternatively, you can use the article's talkpage to air your concerns and request that the article be improved; other editors can then do the work of bringing the page up to date (this is not something that you or other FSH volunteers should do, since it would bring you into a conflict of interest with Wikipedia). If you can provide independent sources (such as mentions in newspapers or books) to support the request, that would be even better. Yunshui雲水15:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I just did a quick Google (Find sources:Google (books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs) ·FENS·JSTOR·TWL) and there may be enough there to establish notability. "This would require time and other resources that the group chooses to place elsewhere" is really irrelevant as the organization doesn't control the page. If the organization is notable and the article does not otherwise breach Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, we don't delete it just because the organization wants it deleted.--ukexpat (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
March 2
New article seems to have disappeared
To whom it may concern
Some days ago I uploaded an article named "Bretten Youth Council", which was a project of my English class.
As I knew it first had to be proofread before being published, but now I do not find it anymore, neither as a published article nor as the draft I had saved it as. And I'm sure that I saved it. Is it possible that it has disappeared? Or do I just have to wait until it is proofread? How long does this usually take?
Thanks for your help.
Looking at your contributions, the only edits you have made have been to this page; and looking at your talk page, there has been no speedy deletion notification at all. I also performed a search, and found nothing for "Bretten Youth Council" or "Breton Youth Council". When you create an article, it is live immediately, and does not require proofreading. From this, I must conclude that you evidently did not save the page, or if you did, you created it under a different account. FrigidNinja14:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, before creating an article, you should make sure it meets the notability guidelines so it does not get speedily deleted. In fact, there's a whole page you can read on creating an article here. FrigidNinja14:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I can find no trace of such an article in your account or elsewhere. The only Google hit on "Bretten Youth Council" is your question here so even if the topic exists, it seems unlikely to satisfy our notability requirements. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Article got a C grade for quality; question on how to improve it
Hi,
I just had my first article accepted for creation:
The DO-IT Center
The article got a C grade for quality and I would like to improve the article. But I'm not sure where to find specifics about why it received that grade (for example, does it need more outside sources for notability?). Is there any way to find out what specifically I can do to improve the quality of the article?
Hey, I'm a new user to Wikipedia looking to contribute, though I'm still unsure of the rules. To be quite honest, I'm confused on them and I'm not sure I ever will understand them completely.
I found an updated picture of wrestler Wade Barrett I wanted to add to his article. I found it on Google Images and when going to the page that the picture was from, I found no evidence towards the work being either free to use from the author or copyrighted. I wanted to upload it but I didn't want to accidentally break any rules.
Unless there is a specific statement releasing copyright of the image on terms acceptable to Wikipedia (basically, without limit on reuse) then the image cannot be uploaded and used on Wikipedia.--ukexpat (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Alrighty, here we go. Here's the sites I could possibly use the pic:
I understand if you're busy with stuff, I'm sure I've got plenty more time on my hands then yourself, haha. If neither of these work out, I'll try looking on Flickr.
And yeah, I'm from South Jersey so being a Philly sports fan is natural. Glad to see that's something we have in common.
Nope, sorry, we cannot use either of those images. Both sites have explicit copyright notices so without an express release for all purposes, we can't use them.--ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
March 4
March 5
adding a photo to my newly submitted edit.
I just finished adding/editing information to a biographical article and it was accepted. I thought I read somewhere in the suggestions that I could add a photograph of the painting I mentioned. Where can I find that information? Thank you very much.Garnette1930 (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
You can add a photograph, provided it meets Wikipedia's copyrtght criteria: either it is in the public domain, or it has been explicitly released by the copyright holder under a licence acceptable to Wikipedia, or it meets the rather tight criteria for using non-free content. (If the painting is still in copyright, a photo of it is probably not acceptable). You need to upload the photo first, preferably to Commons, and then you can link to it from the article.
i have written a BLP. Earlier i had not added ref. & there were a few mistakes in formatting because of which my post got blocked, but now when i had made the corrections then also my post is not going live.... Please guide me how to go about it??
Hello there Shruti Malviya. I assume you mean User:Shruti Malviya/sandbox correct? If so to nominate an existing draft or user sandbox to Articles for Creation, add to the top: {{subst:submit}} Editors will review it and make it live or make recommendations on what can be done to help the article developed before going live. This make take a few days (up to a week) - got to remember everyone here is a volunteer like yourself so give them time to reply to questions and to the new article request. Moxy (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
How do you change the title of your article?
Also, we received an email that our article did not meet the appropiate standards because it was felt that our bio was too promotional. We did change that, so how do we proceed?
You had created a userpage rather than an article. Once you have been registered for a few days and have made several edits, you are able to use the move tool. As an autobiography what you had written was unsurprisingly promotional - it is highly advised that people do not create them for this reason. I have deleted it as a result. If there have been several articles written about you in high quality sources such as the NYT or Forbes then it may be possible to create an article, but you should wait for someone else to, rather than doing it yourself. This page tells you what is required to write an article, and this page tells you how to write it so that it is less likely to be deleted. SmartSE (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Also: you say, "we received an email...": who is "we"? Is this account being run by David, or Don, or somebody else entirely, or more than one of the above???? --Orange Mike | Talk18:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I was reading in the article of Imam Ali (Ali only)
There i stopped at that the sunnies caliphes except Imam Ali are included in Ahlul-Bat. But that is wrong. Ahlul Bayt are: THe prophet Muhammed. 12 Imams. And Fatima daughter of Muhammed.
I guess it is not needed splitting Islamic articles between shia and sunni if noon disagrees in tnis. Could some resident take over this? I'll be watching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunarious (talk • contribs) 23:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand your point, perhaps because I know little of Islamic history. The best place to bring up points like this is on the talk page of the article Talk:Ali --ColinFine (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
March 8
March 9
March 10
speedy deletion of The Indian Subcontinent Partition Documentation Project entry? and more...
every time i try to remedy what i've done wrong, i fail - often making my attemt at a submission worse. my questions, at present, are: where does my attempt at creation/submission of an article stand? was it speedily deleted? i can't seem to find the link or url to dispute that. can you please tell me as simply as possible for a slow witted individual such as myself: how do i fix my submission? thank you.
Benji11568 (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Benji11568
If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps. --ColinFine (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
March 11
Article Quality
In the edit history there are many commons delinker edits. e.g. File: xyz has been removed, it has been deleted from commons by abc. Because: copyright violation. Does this type of edit history affect an article quality? Please explain this to me?Farhajking (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Was working on a page, saved it and now it seems lost
I was starting to work on a page for a listing for a famous child dancer named Virginia Myers who performed during the first two decades of the 20th century. It was done on a sub-page titled: User:BEDownes/Virginia_Myers/
I had been a little concerned about saving my work after previewing it because on an earlier page I first started for Ethel Myers (now published on Wikipedia) I had tried saving it after preview and could not seem to find it again. I did check before the save with an experienced editor working with Wikipedia writers and I was told there would be no trouble, just save it directly.
I did that a few days ago and now I can't find my work at all. I'm sure it's just dumb on my point, but I thought once I created the sub-page I would be safe. I hadn't done that much work on the page, but I would like to have it back again.
BEDownes (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure that saved your page, not only just previewed it? Your contributions log doesn't contain anything about a Virginia Myers (except for the edits you made to Ethel Myers). Also if you created the subpage User:BEDownes/Virginia Myers it should have been there if no one deleted the page. The deletion log of that subpage also contains nothing, which means that the page have never been deleted. If the subpage was created at one time and an admin deleted the page, it should be in the deletion log. So it is very likely that you didn't save the page after writing on it. Regards. --Ushau97talkcontribs10:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
March 14
Returning to Article Draft
I am using the Article Wizard and have pressed "Save page" at the bottom of the screen. I have closed my browser and now I am now looking for a way to get back to this article to continue working on the draft. Previously, I had left the page once already and lost my work. This second time I made sure to use the Save page button, but I cannot figure out how to get back to the article.
You don't have to delete the question. It will be automatically archived by a bot later on. For future reference, you can use the contributions page to take a look at all your contributions. It will contain a history of all the edits you made to English Wikipedia, except the ones which have been deleted. To view your contributions, just press the Contributions link at the top right side of the page. Regards, --Ushau97talkcontribs04:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Trying to Add an Image to an Infobox
Please let me start off by saying I am VERY new to Wikipedia and I apologize if this is an obvious question. I have searched the FAQs and have been unable to find the answer to this question. I am updating what I think is an article as it shows up in the Article tab for a business magazine. I want to add an image of one of the magazine's covers (which is copyrighted material but I have seen other magazines have done it successfully) to the Infobox on the page. However, I keep getting this message:
"This is not an actual encyclopedia article!
The page Strategy%2BBusiness is not in the main article namespace. Non-free files can only be used in mainspace article pages, not on a user page, talk page, template, etc.
Please upload this file only if it is going to be used in an actual article."
Can someone tell me if this truly isn't an article and if it isn't how I get it set up correctly as an article without losing all the current content on the page? Many thanks for taking pity and helping out the newbie MJFaski (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is in the mainspace at Strategy+Business. Image advice follows:
If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The second half of this standard "image advice" does not apply in your case. To add an image to the infobox in the Strategy+Business article, the proper edit is to add | image_file = File name.jpg on a line by itself after the existing line | name = strategy+business. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
But given that the article has almost no content and no references, it is likely to get deleted if you, or somebody do not provide some solid references to independent reliable sources that cover the magazine. A picture is far from the first thing the article needs. --ColinFine (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
OK - thanks for the prompt responses guys - I appreciate it. Colin, I agree it needs more content and I am working on that at the moment, but as I am new to this I am taking baby steps! That said, the comment made above about adding the image to Wikipedia Commons isn't applicable as the image is NOT public domain - at least not as I understand after reading the guidelines at Wikipedia Commons. It is copyrighted so I have to go through the File Upload Wizard - I am guessing. My problem is that I can't get past the first few questions because as soon as I paste "Strategy%2BBusiness" into the "This file will be used in the following article:" field, I instantly get the message "This is not an actual encyclopedia article!" (see rest of message above in earlier post). I am unable to continue through the File Upload Wizard. I am sure I am doing something wrong, but would appreciate any guidance you all can provide as I navigate these waters! Thanks! MJFaski (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Try it with the displayed title of the article, "Strategy+Business", with a plus sign in the middle, rather than part of its URL, with "%2B". -- John of Reading (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, John - that worked! Now I think I have the whole thing completely properly - mind you I have done this about 15 times in the last 2 days - but the button to Upload is not highlighted - so the only option I have is to Reset Form (again). I have tried any number of things - hitting the enter button after each entry, praying, cursing, standing on my head, sticking pins in my favorite wikipedia doll - any thoughts/tips/magic spells? Thanks!MJFaski (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Which choice have you selected in the box beginning "Non-free use rationale"? And have you entered something in all the boxes marked with a red asterisk? (I'm going offline now, so one of the other helpers will have to take over here). -- John of Reading (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The button is greyed out because you cannot upload files until your account is autoconfirmed, ie has made 10 edits and is 4 days old. So for the moment don't worry about the image, concentrate on citing some sources until you are autoconfirmed.--ukexpat (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I kindly request the assistance of an experienced editor on Wikipedia to assist me in creating a new page. I have only just signed up to Wikipedia earlier today, I tried creating and editing the same page for Dr. Thabo Matubatuba and it was deleted for "unambiguous advertising". I tried and failed to restore it and realized the only way to have this done is with assistance of an editor that has experience with creating pages on Wikipedia.
Dr. Thabo Matubatuba is a leading ophthalmologist who a specialist in providing service for childhood and adult eye conditions.
Ophthalmic surgeon with a special interest in Anterior Segment & Eye Laser (Refractive) surgery.
He is a leading Ophthalmologist who is a specialist providing service for childhood and adult eye conditions.
SPECIALIZED CONSULTATIONS AND TREATMENT OF:
• Glaucoma
• Diabetic Laser
• Squint correction
• Diabetic screening
• Paediatric Eye Care
EDUCATION
• University of KwaZulu-Natal
• MBChB, Ophthalmology
• 1995 – 2001
VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE
Mercy Ships - October 2010
Responsibilities:
• Phase I of the program begins with assessment of the current system, training of eye teams and the transporting of patients to hospital locations.
• Phase II calls for the training of ophthalmologists in the Mercy Ships expedited procedure of cataract removal and the referrals of cataract patients to be received at the hospital sites. The training of local eye surgeons of which Dr. Thabo Matubatuba was part of. They were trained on cataract removal that has enabled surgeons to return sight to hundreds of blind people in South Africa. Developed in Nepal, India and fine tuned onboard Mercy Ships hospital ship, the Manual Small Incision Cataract Surgery technique is cost effective and requires no sutures.
• Phase III includes the cataract operations, assessment and debriefing following the cataract surgeries, and the continuation of the program at future sites.
ABOUT MERCY SHIPS
Mercy Ships uses hospital ships to deliver free, world-class health care services to those without access in the developing world. Founded in 1978 by Don and Deyon Stephens, Mercy Ships has worked in more than 70 countries, providing services valued at more than $808 million, directly impacting more than 2.5 million beneficiaries. More than 1200 volunteers worldwide, representing more than 40 nations, are joined each year by 2000 short-term volunteers.
I cannot figure out why my submission has not been submitted. It says it has not been submitted yet. I must not understand the directions. Is the box supposed to look blank when I submit? I have not deleted the item on top that it says I should not delete. Should I delete now that I am ready to submit? The article itself follows every rule, has qualified references etc, so it is not the content, but simply a matter of submission, but not simple for me. Please advise. Grumblethorpe77 (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
You have pressed submit more than once. I guess you didn't read the message which was there when you submitted it. A bot will automatically change it after sometime. Until then just wait. Or if there is any way to improve the article keep on improving. --Ushau97talkcontribs12:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I created my first article and was able to save it successfully. I cannot find where to retrieve it in order to successfully complete my work. The article name is "Canadian College Italy" I am a brand new member and would appreciate some assistance.
I general see Help:Files for how to upload and show an image. More specifically, if you are asking about a portrait of RoseMary Fiki, the most difficult issue is finding an image with a free license--one that allows reuse by anyone for anything. Most images you find on the internet are not useable. —teb728tc06:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
request source : template is it allowed only on English wiki?
Hi
As I was editing English articles, I also make review of some Polish articles. Generally on the Polish Wikipedia in section of ministry of the treasure(Jan Vincent-Rostowski) I didn't saw a valuable source about claims that he have Polish passport/citizenship. There is no info about this on English Wikipedia, and knowing that he was raised abroad, with parents "in exile", he maybe don't have it(e.g. parents lost they Polish passport/citizenships because of the communism Poland government decision).
I did as probably every guideline show - inserted "{{fakt}}" - e.g. Polish for "need source", in manual of Wikipedia. Just when somebody will find source he can easily reflink it, but info must be to achieve quality standards. Polish representative of administrative Wikipedia board - called "Elfhelm", not only didn't accepted the edition, but also blockaded my IP on Polish wikipedia.
If I understand you correctly, you are asking about the correct way to do something, and complaining about the behaviour of an admin, both on Polish Wikipedia. I am afraid that different language Wikipedias are entirely separate, and English Wikipedia has no information or control over activities on Polish Wikipedia. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
photo edit
hello sir,,
I'm having the photos of "thirumuruganpoondi".. but i dont know how to insert / edit it in the "thirumuruganpoondi" wiki page... please help me... I'm having so many photos of it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnusri14 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to fix a link at the bottom of the article about Stakeholder Engagement. The link to Future 500 is not working. I can't figure out what's wrong with it. Please help!
KathrinJansen (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering why you will not list killision(the legendary l.a. thrash band)from the late 80's and early 9o's? I scored an 84on my college word composition final so "I KNOW" i'm not the one with the grammar problem 64.118.103.115 (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi--when I preview my page it says Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references /> tag; see the help page.
But I don't know what that means I need to do? — Preceding comment added by Morsec91 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 22 March 2013
It would be useful if you tell us which page. Your contribution record shows no edits other than the question above. Wasn't there a wikilink in the "help page" reference in the message? - David Biddulph (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Redirect or disambiguation?
I requested two redirects to Charles Turner Torrey, one from Charles Torrey and one from C T Torrey. Afterwards, I noticed that Charles Cutler Torrey has a redirect from Charles Torrey. Will this be a problem re my first suggested redirect?Jmt2Jtm (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Adding considerable new material to an existing page that's quite short
I would like to add information to the Charles Turner Torrey page. It's currently quite short, and I would like to add about 1400 words. Is it okay to delete the heading "Biography" and substitute the following headings: "Education and early career," "Early work as an abolitionist," "Freeing slaves," "Prison and death," and "Assessment"? Or would it be better to use these as subheadings under "Biography"? Also, what is the best way to merge the existing text with the new text, i.e., is it ever possible to delete old text that would be redundant when the new text is added, or is it best to leave it as is? Thanks very much for your help. This is my first project except for some minor edits on one other Wikipedia page.Jmt2Jtm (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, since the entire article is a biography, the "Biography" header should be gone. Your profered substitute headers seem as good as any. --Orange Mike | Talk00:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Depends which kind of ton/tonne one is referring to: See ton and tonne, the former is usually used to refer to the imperial/non-metric unit of mass, whereas tonne is metric unit of mass equal to 1000kg.--ukexpat (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
March 24
March 25
Confused newcomer
How do I make article about football player who plays in Estonian league? I've made one before but it was deleted and in explanation i saw that first Estonian league is not regarded as fully profesional. He did play before in Premier league of Bosnia&Herzegovina and that league is regarded by wikipedia as fully profesional, so I don't understand completely why my article has been deleted.
You haven't told us the name of the player, and you have no previous edits as this user, so I am not able to look at the deletion nomination and see what the grounds were for deleting the article. But I'm guessing it was that the article did not establish that the player was notable. Whether the league is fully professional is indeed relevant, see WP:NFOOTBALL; but that gives an additional grounds for notability, not the only one. If you can establish that the player has been written about substantially (not just mentioned) in several reliable sources independent of him and his club, then he will meet the general notability guidelines. Such sources do not have to be in English, or available online, though it is preferred if they are. So if, for example, more than one Estonian newspaper or reliable edited website (not a fansite or blog) has published articles about the player, then an article on him that references these articles will be acceptable. Note that all the information in an article on a living person must be referenced, so if there are not such sources, then it will not be possible to write a satisfactory article anyway. --ColinFine (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Reporting Shoah victim deaths
Does wikipedia have a standard for how Shoah victim deaths should be described in their own biographical articles? So, for example, do you say "So-and-So died in Auschwitz" or "So-and-So was murdered in Auschwitz" or 'So-and-So was executed by the SS on the 14th of October 1944"? Obviously, some of the terminology depends on the factual context, if known. I am not having any disputes with other editors on this - I just want to know before I edit if any standard or custom has been developed. Thank you.Jellypear (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
It depends entirely on what the sources that you are citing say about the event. If they say "died in" then that is what the article must say. If they say "murdered" then the article may say "murdered" - If the sources differ, then the article should either use words which are consistent with all the sources, or it might be appropriate for the article to say that the sources describe it in different ways (but see WP:WEIGHT). --ColinFine (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering can I start editing on Wikipedia, I will only list factual information(of course). But, I mostly want to edit to clear any mistake(s) I come across.SageFacts (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
No Original Research versus But It's True versus easily observable
Apologies on going through the various policy articles and simply not understanding the complexities of the distinctions as they relate to the physical world. Physical reality, as a general rule, doesn't violate NPOV; hence, a list of real things should have no POV at all, but I'd like to just pose a few hypothetical statements with my understanding of whether they are supportable:
Trees exist. Allowable without sources because it is common knowledge.
There is a tree outside my window. (Discounting whether this is significant.) Not allowable without a published source commenting on the existence of said tree?
The tree outside my window is a sweetgum. I could easily provide a published source identifying trees that match the observable characteristics of said tree as sweetgums, but this is still not allowable because I haven't established the existence of the tree in the first place?
My particular point in this is that I have been updating a List of... article that compiles known works of a particular 19th/20th century catalog architect. I'm trying to determine what the threshold for qualification for this list is. For example, a built example of a house exists; the catalog showing the design of that house can be cited. I'm having trouble with the idea that lack of a previously published source linking the two may make the linking of the two for the article not allowed. Would this count as Original Research? To my mind it's analogous to pulling a quarter from my pocket and concluding that it's the same as the last quarter I pulled from my pocket. There's a distinction between "common knowledge" and "commonly observable" that I can't find basis for in the policy articles. If existence of the actual house is easily demonstrable by Google Earth, or Bing maps, or by quite literally standing in front of the house, the idea that a published source supporting its existence would still be necessary seems nonsensical - well beyond "But It's True." For that matter, can Google Earth be considered a published source?
The corollary to that is that one still has to use one's observations to conclude that the two are the same, though they likely vary slightly. But then, since one has made a conclusion that wasn't pre-digested for him or her in a previously published work, there's the tiniest bit of Original Research involved, once again. Surely a copy of something can be interpreted as a copy without needing a published source saying so.
What if there is a published source picturing the tree outside my window, but not identifying it as anything in particular. Can I then cite my tree identification book and the photo and conclude that it is, in fact, a sweetgum? They obviously vary in some respects (since the picture in my book is not of that exact physical tree), but if any reasonable person carefully observing the same two sources could conclude that they are the 'same', is it an allowable conclusion? Maybe I'm over-thinking all of this... Archarin (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
You're not over-thinking; you're displaying forethought, as opposed to afterthought. Most of what you are classifying as "commonly observable" is in fact not acceptable here, as falling under the "synthesis" part of "No original research or synthesis". I know sweetgums as only a Southerner born and bred can know them; but as an admin, I'd have to say, "Nope, that thing with the sweetgum balls on it and all around it may be a sweetgum to you and me, but we need a verifiablereliable source to say so in Wikipedia." I think part of the reason we're so hardnosed about this is in order to keep people off the slope that slides from "Obviously that's a gray fox: see how it matches this book with the pictures" to "Obviously [insert name of politician you don't like here] is a proto-fascist: see how he matches this book with the description of the characteristics of a fascist". --Orange Mike | Talk17:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I appreciate you pointing out the instruction regarding "synthesis," but I just can't convince myself that defining the distinction such that objective qualification is allowable is such a slippery slope. [Politician I don't like] is a [pejorative judgment] is rather a different standard because a) the politician likely doesn't describe himself in that way, and b) there's likely to be any number of people who would judge him differently. I do even see that the pejorative itself isn't even necessary - "[Politician I like] is a swell guy," is also a qualitative judgment. But it's still a subjective qualification rather than an objective one. I'm still back, for the most part, at whether he objectively even exists. Here's an example, for my specific problem. Montague House in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, objectively exists, as can be demonstrated by a photo. I can easily judge that this is the same house design presented in Modern Dwellings, Third Edition[1](recognizing that I just wrote, "I can judge," when much of your point was that it's invalid to insert myself into the synthesis). The National Register of Historic Places nomination form for the district, however, identifies architects within the district simply as "Unknown." That's not to fault its authors - the district contains 260 buildings; that one was designed by the architect I am concerned with is an easily-overlooked detail in that context, i.e. identifying his contributions, specifically, was not part of their area of concern. I can conceive of the validity of requiring a "reference needed" tag on the attribution in the "List of Works," but it's counterproductive to the purpose of the list itself to conclude that it shouldn't even be included. There just has to be some value to 'fact' in countering errors of omission, or there's little point in ever trying to assemble a list of anything. Archarin (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC) (I.e. the entirety of the research that someone would do before publishing the statement, "Montague House in Hattiesburg, Mississippi is an example of Design #4 from George F. Barber's Modern Dwellings, Third Edition," would be to take two seconds to compare the two.)Archarin (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I guess you are talking about the article Budha? That article is not very well referenced, but a quick look with Google seems to turn up many sites equating Budha to Mercury and not Venus. If you have a reliable source which shows that Budha is Venus rather than Mercury, then you could edit the article; but since most sources seem to show the opposite, it would be best if you would start a discussion at the article's talk page, Talk:Budha. --ColinFine (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I tried to make some improvements in the lede of the Charles Lindbergh article, but they were immediately reverted. When I checked the article's talk page I found a long history of other editors' concerns about the reverting editor's writing and reversions. Can't something be done about this? 70.235.84.144 (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Based on the nature and specific language used in the comment above as well as that in a similar virtually simultaneous posting in the Charles Lindbergh Talk page, that it has been posted from an anonymous IP which resolves to an AT&T server located in SW Connecticut in or near Wallingford, CT, and the poster "appears" to have never edited WP before, it is obvious to me that this posting is specious and is instead yet another periodic reappearance of the well known community banned LTA Techwriter2B who has a long history of engaging in this type of disruptive editing which always starts the same way: appearing to be just a concerned good faith new editor trying to help the project. As does the IP 70.235.84.144 used by the poster above, virtually all of the almost 300 sockpuppet anonymous IPs that have been positively identified as having been used by this abusive user to edit WP since 2005 also resolve to AT&T servers in SW Connecticut located in or near Willingford.
This LTA has "wikistalked" a fairly large number of WP editors (including myself) over a period of eight years (beginning in 2005) often beginning each such new attack with exactly this type "complaint" about "bad writing" in an article in which the particular editor he/she is stalking has been a major long time contributor. (It should also be pointed out that this is not even the first time that this LTA has attempted to disrupt the Charles Lindbergh article which he/she attacked before several years ago.) This posting has all the telltale hallmarks of yet another of his/her periodic attacks which virtually always include a posting in the article's talk page as well as the opening of a discussion in a new user's help forum (or other similar forum) and thus should be ignored.
The fact that the LTA posted his/her "complaint" in the Lindbergh talk page in which he/she claims to have in the interim researched my history of contributions to the article ("It looks like someone has tried to remedy the situation before me (See "I have tried..." above). It also looks like the same editor has interfered with efforts to improve the article, again. Sigh.") just 14 minutes after I reverted his/her deletions in the lede -- and then also opened this thread just 16 minutes after that -- is one of the LTA's known telltale practices and clearly shows once again that this is a preplanned wikistalking attack aimed in advance at me specifically as the major contributor to the article over the years as he/she clearly already expected that his/her deletions would be reverted and that I would be the editor to do so.
Once called out on each new attempted wikistalking attack as is being done again here the same way that I and many other of his/her wikistalking victims have had to do many times before after earlier such attacks, this LTA's first response will be to pretend that he/she is completely innocent, as a "newbie" (which he/she most certainly isn't) knows nothing of WP procedures, and is only acting in good faith. These denials will be completely false and disingenuous. All of his/her telltale practices and behaviors are very well documented and spelled out in great detail in the extensive and long standing LTA file on "Techwriter2B" (which was first opened when this user was finally community banned almost three years ago) for anyone who doubts this to see for themselves. Centpacrr (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Wow! I was going to ask a question here, but after having read the section above, I think I'll skip Wikipedia and keep working on another Wiki I'm involved with.
Ushua97 is "spot on" and has correctly identified exactly what has happened in the post immediately above. (See 'Discussion at WP:ANI#Possible sockpuppet'.) The post above by "Breese Anderson" even further proves the case that this is another Wikistalking attack by LTA Techwriter2B. Another of this long time abuser's telltale standard practices is to register a new sockpuppet account in order to comment in a thread in support of his/her own abusive behavior. (See ""Gang" posts using disguised multiple identities in the same thread" and "Confirmed registered and IP sock accounts (300+)".) This "account" was createdthis morning and the above posting was its first edit on WP made just 14 minutes later. Interestingly this account's second (and so far only other) posting was made two minutes later to an article on psychology, a subject area the LTA has often edited in the past. The LTA has in fact also pretended in the past to actually be a professional psychologist. (See here and here.)
A Google search for the name "Breese Anderson" also returns links to a person of that name who is a psychologist in North Carolina and whom the LTA appears to be impersonating here, another of his/her telltale behaviors. (He/she even once tried to impersonate me.) In addition, the chances that a new user would register on WP and then within just minutes make his/her first posting a ridiculous (but complicated) one like the one above in an obscure thread that had just been started without this new user being a sockpuppet of the IP who started the thread is absolutely zero. This is all additional proof positive that IP 70.235.84.144 and that IPs just registered sockpuppet "Breese Anderson" are in fact both the well known community banned LTA Techwriter2B.
A number of other editors and I have been dealing with Techwriter2B for years now and there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this is him/her. None at all. I am extremely familiar with this LTA's telltale practices and techniques and this current event fits every one of them. This LTA was permanently banned from WP by the community on July 18, 2010. Centpacrr (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
March 30
Creating a biography
Hello,
I'm new to Wikipedia and have a question about submitting a biography. I've read the help pages about conflict of interest and want to make sure that I follow the guidelines. I found this explanation:
"The proper way to get your own writing about yourself into Wikipedia if you really think that you can meet the inclusion criteria and are willing to accept having a neutral, non-promotional article, is to make a proposal at Articles for creation containing the text you want, instead of just putting it into the encyclopedia directly, and seek the consensus of the community through discussion. Not only does this provide independent viewpoints on it that can allow you to discover biases you were not aware of having, it also helps provide an indication of good faith and that you are willing to put the interests of Wikipedia first instead of standing in a conflict of interest."
Wikipedia:Autobiography
How does one make a proposal at "articles for creation." I've looked on that page and don't see where to make a proposal. I have the article written; it is neutral, and non-promotional; and it includes verifiable sources. Is there a place where I can propose the article to get make sure that it meets the Wikipedia guidelines?
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. The only edit you made with this account is the question above. So I don't know where your article is located. Can you please provide a link to where the article is. To propose an article at Articles for Creation, visit WP:AFC. If you provide a link to the article then things could be a little faster. Regards --Ushau97talk16:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Can I ask, how can I be one of those who answers the questions that's asked in the reference desk? Do they get paid if they answer one question or so?
124.6.181.103 (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you can answer questions there if you wish - just click the "Edit" links. But the only reward is the satisfaction of answering the questions; there's no money involved. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Music chart problem?
I've already made a new article for Creative Disc and I want their chart to be added in every single songs. But everytime I edit the chart in every songs, it get edited and deleted. Can I ask why so I can edit it again?
Ggdlmnt (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that you haven't provided a citation to a single reliable source independent of the subject. Unless the article provides such citations, it will not establish that the site is notable, and the article is likely to be deleted. Until the site is shown to be notable, its ratings are not notable and should not be included in articles. --ColinFine (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
' Discussion at WP:ANI#Possible sockpuppet' --Ushau97 talk 15:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)