Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 277

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 270

←

Archive 275

An opinion about my first article

Hello Teahouse! After reading a gargantuan amount of guidelines (even the most disturbing ones), observing how more experienced editors behave, patrolling new pages and fixing existing articles, I've finally written my first low-importance science-fiction related article: Lolani. I'm aware that it needs some serious copyediting work but I would like to ask to you if you have any other suggestion to improve it. Thanks! ► LowLevel ^(talk) 17:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You've done an amazing job for a first article. Congrats! I don't have time to read the entire article and review it in detail but I do a have a few style suggestions. 1) Put the Cast section at the bottom as it breaks up the flow of the article. 2) Be careful of over-sectioning ie creating special sections for just one sentence. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Keithbob, thanks for your suggestions! I will merge the "production" section with the too short "release" section; that should produce a better presented article. About the position of the list of cast members, I'm trying to follow the most common habit that I've observed in film-related Wikipedia articles, where the list of cast members is provided between the plot summary and the production information. My rationale is that that order has been followed for so many years that Wikipedia readers who are interested in movies could expect to find that section in that specific place. What do you think about it? Thanks again for your opinion! ► LowLevel ^(talk) 05:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, really well done! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks MadScientistX11! Have you found any aspect that I could try to improve? ► LowLevel ^(talk) 05:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

LowLevel73, I wish I had more substantive feedback. Actually, I started to answer this last night but decided to have another look at the article and I ended up getting distracted and watching Lolani online. I'm a Star Trek nerd but have never seen any of this fan created stuff; didn't even know there was stuff like this filmed so professionally. It really looks like a Star Trek episode! This is why I like editing and hosting; every once in a while I come across something amazingly cool like this I never would have known about otherwise. My one suggestion actually is about the online version of the episode. I didn't see an external link to it on the Lolani article. I realize we are careful about not using Youtube links but my understanding is that IF the Youtube content is posted legally and we are certain that it is legal it's OK to link to Youtube. My guess is that the Youtube channel that hosts this is doing so legally since it was probably produced with distribution on Youtube in mind. If I'm wrong about that; if the only way you can legally see Lolani is via some subscription service and the Youtube version is not perfectly legal than the article should not have a link to the episode. But if I'm correct then it would be OK to externally link to the episode in the article. I see external links all the time to actual content from articles about books and films. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello MadScientistX11, thanks for your comments and suggestion! I think that we can easily avoid any legal doubt/issue providing a link not to a video hosted on a video-sharing website (the producers of STC have both a Vimeo and a YouTube channel) but to the "Episodes" page of the official Star Trek Continues website, where all the episodes of the series can be viewed. Also, if you liked "Lolani" and you are a Star Trek fan, have a look at the STC episode "Fairest of the All"; you could find it interesting. Thanks again for your help! ► LowLevel ^(talk) 18:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd also remove this entire sentence:

Rod Roddenberry, son of the creator of the Star Trek franchise, Gene Roddenberry, praised the episode and stated: "In terms of story and Messaging, I'd list it amongst my favorites. My father would be extremely proud and he would agree when I say it is welcome as an part of Star Trek History".[12]

It's a gratuitous, nepotic, non-notable and biased sentence cited to Twitter, which is not an acceptable source on WP per WP:TWITTER. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Keithbob, thanks for your suggestion and for the edits on the article, all of them have clarified some aspects of Wikipedia editing that were not clear to me. I will also follow your suggestion of removing the sentence that you cited; WP:TWITTER specifies when the citation of a tweet can be accepted and that tweet by Rod Roddenberry is clearly not acceptable. Thanks! ► LowLevel ^(talk) 18:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

help make a wikiproject

Can someone help me make a wiki project that I have listed on my page. Thank You. Runne (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse! I'd be glad to help! Let me know how I can help! George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 16:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you know about the statistic on wikiproject's pages, can anyone help me make one for Wikipedia:WikiProject West Milford Runne (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Thank you

First it would probably be a good idea to list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals to see if there are enough interested editors to go about creating such a project. Unfortunately, there are a lot of projects which have been created in good faith which ultimately tend not to have much real support, and in some cases there is additional work to do later in trying to somehow merge inactive projects to more active projects to help draw some attention to articles. Having said that, if there is enough support to go through the effort of creating everything involved in a wikiproject, drop me a message at my user talk page and I can help. I've done a lot of project set-up in the past. John Carter (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

editing questions

Hi, I am quite new and would like to help improving and creating articles. I have recently edited one article: name: Natalie Ni Shi.

I have helped to update an external link as this article was mentioned an orphan. However, the note of orphanage is still there, am I doing something wrong, and how can I improve, please?

Thank you very much!Adversec (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Adversec, and welcome to the Teahouse. According to the Wikipedia glossary, an orphan is 'an article with no links from other pages in the main article namespace (WP:O).' This refers to interwiki links, those that link to other mainspace articles, not other webpages. For instance, Link (The Legend of Zelda) is an interwiki link. However, right now, it looks as if interwiki links have been added to the article. Just be noted that improvement tags for articles may not be removed automatically, and that you can remove the tags if the article has improved to the point that the tags are not necessary, which is true in this case. KJ^Discuss? 14:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi KJ,

Thank you very much indeed! May I ask after we make each edit or adjustment, are there anyone to check for us and how long shall we wait for if the improvement tags are not automatically removed? Sincerely thank you for clarify!Adversec (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Careful, Kkj11210: An orphan is an article which has no incoming links: no other article links to it. You can't change orphan status by any edit to the orphan article, you need to edit other articles. Looking at "What links here" in the "Tools" section of the sidebar will tell you if there are any incoming links. Adversec: any editor may remove a tag as soon as they think it is no longer appropriate. (It is a good idea to explain this in the edit summary, so that nobody mistakes the deletion for vandalism). If somebody disagrees that the tag should have been removed, they can restore the tag, and then the two can have a discussion on the Talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Adversec: The orphan tag could be removed by adding a link to the article to List of University of British Columbia people. It would, however, be best to be able to provide a reliable source which verifies that Shi did actually graduate from the University of British Columbia. The link could be added now, but another editor might challenge it and remove it. I tried to find a source in English, but have had no luck so far. Finally, the article has quite a few other problems besides it's orphan status. I've started some discussion threads about these at Talk:Natalie Ni Shi so please feel free to discuss.

- Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, thank you for your note. I did some research, if the context of a Canadian published article by Opera Canada Publication [link=http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Edmonton.-a0189072629] mentioned that she was a UBC graduate, ["The Queen of the Night must be daunting for a young soprano, and UBC grad Ni Shi handled the technical demands penetratingly, albeit with room to grow into the dramatic expectations of the touchstone coloratura challenge." ] would this consider a reliable source? In this case do we need to create a link as "List of University of British Columbia people" then?

Thank you very much! Adversec (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Adversec: I think the source you have found is OK, but it might be a good idea to ask at WT:O for a second opinion as to whether this is enough to de-orphan the article. If it is, then you just follow the instructions given at WP:O#Suggestions for how to de-orphan an article. If you want to be really sure about the reliability of the source, then you could also ask at WP:RSN. I believe this is the original article, but I do not want to register with that site just to find out. Someone at "WP:RSN" might be willing to do that. - Marchjuly (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, thank you very much for your help! Adversec (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on Dorothy Kilgallen

Hello, I created my account yesterday. I did that because I am trying to dispute the decisions that more experienced editors are making on the Talk page for Dorothy Kilgallen. Maybe you can answer my specific question about the way I hope to present a side of the debate that the experienced editors are missing.

If you go to that Talk page and scroll down to the last section, you notice that these experienced editors are focusing on whether a major source for the article, a 1979 Kilgallen biography by Lee Israel, should be classified as a fringe source. The section has the word fringe in the title. There is talk of a white-collar crime for which Ms. Israel was convicted in 1992, which was fourteen years after she finished her research and manuscript for Kilgallen. I am familiar with her career and life, so I knew about her criminal record before the Wikipedia editors brought it up.

I am trying to maintain that Ms. Israel's white-collar crime does not in any way undermine the research she did many years earlier using a 40,000 - dollar advance from Delacorte Press, her publisher for Kilgallen. When Ms. Israel started committing her crime in 1992, she had not made a deal with a book publisher for many years, and she was broke.

Moreover, on the Dorothy Kilgallen Talk page you find one experienced editor's claim that even as far back as 1979, many years before Lee Israel's arrest, Kirkus Reviews questioned the authenticity of the Kilgallen book when it was new.

I hope to present another side to this debate by bringing to a lot of people's attention a highly favorable review of Kilgallen written by Rita Mae Brown in 1979. My question for the Tea people here is that the Dorothy Kilgallen Talk page does not seem to offer me an option for uploading my Jpeg of the Brown review, and Google cannot lead us to any online newspaper archive that has a clipping, so how about if I simply add my Jpeg to the Kilgallen article as a graphic?

Rita Mae Brown's review was published in the Sunday Book World section of The Washington Post. As many of you know, that newspaper charges money via credit card for us to look at anything that appeared in it during the pre - Google era. I got my clipping from microfilm at a public library for a few coins.

I promise not to add a quote from it to the Dorothy Kilgallen article. Anyone will be able to read Brown's words on the Jpeg that I will have added. Then I can add text only to the Talk page alerting the experienced editors that they can read Brown's review of the book if they revisit our Kilgallen article. Maybe they can reconsider their consensus that the Israel book is a fringe source. Any thoughts on my ideas? Thanks for your attention.KathrynFauble (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, KathrynFauble. We take copyright very seriously here on Wikipedia, and we simply do not allow an image of a copyrighted newspaper article to be uploaded to Wikipedia, and that applies to talk pages as well as all other pages. That is out of the question. You can post an attributed quote of two or three sentences from the review on the talk page for discussion purposes.

Then we can assume that two other graphics in the Kilgallen article do not violate copyright laws because they contain newspapers that ceased publication many years ago: Baltimore News-American and New York Journal-American.KathrynFauble (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

That is incorrect, KathrynFauble. When a newspaper goes out of business, its assets are either sold or given to its creditors. Copyrights are business assets. Copyright does not vanish when a newspaper ceases publication, unless there is an explicit agreement to release the content into the public domain. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

As for the reliability of the Lee Israel book, I suggest that you ask for other opinions on the Reliable sources noticeboard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The article you wish to cite is readily available on Proquest - available through many libraries. Here is the cite: "By RITA, MAE B. "What did Dorothy Know?" The Washington Post (1974-Current file): 1. Nov 18 1979. ProQuest. Web. 21 Nov. 2014 ." Possibly available to you through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

But how can I show Proquest to others on the Kilgallen Talk page or on the Let's Discuss It page to which Cullen328 refers below? I have every word that Ms. Brown wrote in front of me. They can't read one word of it.KathrynFauble (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

KathrynFauble, Rita Mae Brown is known as a novelist (I read Rubyfruit Jungle nearly 40 years ago) and so her opinion of the Kilgallen book may be of interest in literary terms, as a reference in an article about that book. However, she is not an academic historian, so is not a good source for assessing the accuracy of the book in historical terms. In my view, Dorothy Kilgallen devotes way too much attention to conspiracy theories about her death, to the detriment of a balanced biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

If you read the article carefully, you notice it only contains one sentence that theorizes about a possible motive for conspirators. The rest of the text about her death details what was suspicious about the death scene as opposed to who was responsible. That singular sentence containing a conspiracy theory reads, "Throughout her career she consistently refused to identify any of her sources whenever a government agency questioned her, and that might have posed a threat to the alleged JFK conspirators." I'm going to move to Let's Discuss it for my next comment.KathrynFauble (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Have difficulty adding an image

I am translating the english article on Dream Theater to my own language. I want to use an image which is already used in the english article. But when i copy paste the wikicode, it shows an error. The article in my language is [this] Sarat.iisc (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes the wiki syntax on other versions of Wikipedia is different, so simply pasting the English wikicode might not work. The Dream Theater article in your language did have one image, so perhaps you could try to match that. Also, the Telegu Wikipedia has a help page for image syntax, which is te:వికీపీడియా:Extended image syntax. You could try reading that, and ask again if you still can't get it to work. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sarat.iisc: This should do it [[బొమ్మ:DreamTheater2011.jpg|{రకం}|{స్థానం}|{సైజు}|{వ్యాఖ్య}]], just fill in the other parameters in Teluga. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sarat.iisc:@Philg88:While we are on the Telegu subject, could someone explain this message I got this morning. While I'm flattered that people thinks I'm omnilingual, this is beyond me or Google translate. ;) Either it is an invitation or someone at the Telegu WP is using my name. Best, w.carter-Talk 09:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a welcome message (I got one too) because you have a unified login and you clicked on the Teluga link above. With the caveat that I speak not one word of Teluga, I'm guessing that its pointing out that there are lists of new and old pages as well as recent changes that you can look at. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! w.carter-Talk 09:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys. And by the way it is Telugu.(keep note of the spelling).User:Philg88 the image i wanted to add was "Dream_theater_in_1985.jpg" and typing that exact same format as you mentioned with this file isn't working. It is asking me to upload the file and when I try to do that it tells me that there is already a file with the same name. Also copy pasting the wikicode for inserting an audio sample returns an error too. Also Margin1522, I have asked the same question on Telugu Wikipedia's help page and people told me that copy pasting should work. I have no idea what is the problem. Sarat.iisc (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sarat.iisc:The 1985 picture you are trying to use is a non-free picture used on English Wikipedia under fair use license. Is it possible that you need a new license and upload for using it at the Telugu WP? I'm not that familiar with such licenses, but maybe someone else knows. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's like W.carter says. For copyright reasons that file can only be used on the English Wikipedia. Unless it can be uploaded to the Telugu (sp) WP, you'll have to pick from among the images available at Commons under commons:Category:Dream_Theater_(band). – Margin1522 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. :D I will try to upload the file with a similar license but if that cannot happen, i will use another image. Regards,Sarat.iisc (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all. Yes, i will try to re-upload the image in the Telugu WP and if that doesn't work, will go for another one. But is this the case with the audio too? Or is that an entirely different problem involving syntax? RegardsSarat.iisc (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Direct Edit vs. Talk Page

Hi, I have some questions considering the talk page of an article:

1) In what cases is it generally necessary to post a request on the talk page before editing?

2) I have added a request on the talk page of externality some days ago. So far there have been no reactions to that. How long should I wait before making the requested edit?

Thanks for your support!

Econ404 (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Econ404. Edits only need requesting if there is some reason you shouldn't or couldn't make the edit yourself; this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit after all! Examples of such a situation may include;

The page being protected from editing, stopping you making the edit yourself at all. (For example, if you weren't yet autoconfirmed and the page was semi-protected.)
You having a conflict of interest regarding the article subject. To avoid problematic edits you would be encouraged to discuss changes you wanted made to the article on the talk page.

Otherwise, you are free to be bold and make edits yourself, providing you adequately source your additions. As for your suggestion at externality, there's no obvious reason why you couldn't go ahead and add the information you're suggesting yourself! If anyone thinks the edit wasn't suitable the worst that should happen is that you're reverted and they engage in discussion with you about the content. Hope that helps and feel free to ask any further questions! Sam Walton (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that was really helpful! Econ404 (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Econ404 I agree with all the good info that Samwalton9 gave above but just want to add some nuance: IMO it's still often a good idea to mention or discuss changes on the talk page before you make them. It all really depends on how significant the change is, how controversial it is likely to be, etc. For minor changes (e.g., an obvious spelling or grammar error) of course talk page documentation would waste everyone's time. But for more substantive changes I think it's often a good idea to announce your plans and potential edits on the Talk page first. That way if someone disagrees you can talk it out first. Like a lot of issues here there is no one right or wrong answer; so much depends on the specific context of the edit and the work styles of the various editors. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense to me. It seems like a smart move to discuss controversial issues first, before having all your hard work reverted and having to start from scratch. Thanks!

Help Draft:DJ_TTB

I need help with my article. I have been on it since September and they turn it down each time i bring it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DJ_TTB Maobii (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there Maobii, and welcome to the teahouse! I'll have a look at your draft, and I'll have a go at cleaning it up! George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 15:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Maobii:. Hi Maobii. The issue is reliable sourcing to evidence notability and for verification of the content. I've just searched and found no reliable sources to add. Of course such sources might exist but not be easy to find online or might be in Hausa, Igbo, Yoruba and so on, which would leave my English search in the dust (yes, you can cite foreign language reliable sources!). If those sources do not exist, Wikipedia should not have an article on the topic and no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability.

Can you locate, for example, local Nigerian newspapers that write about him under any name? Maybe this will help you search. Just a side note, when I looked for sources I tried his DJ name and personal name but I also saw in the article "Tobechukwu" used in the body, which was not given as a name for him in the intro. Is that an artifact of some other article? Anyway, trying to locate good sources is the only way forward. (@George.Edward.C: The expression "cleaning it up" implies edits to the current content to make it better formatted, better written and so on, none of which will address the issue.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit counter not working?

Once upon a time, I could open my Special:Contributions, and click on the "Edit Count" link at the bottom to satisfy my curiosity about how busy I have been.

But now when I try that, it says that all my counts are zero - I have never made any changes at all. Apart from that, it says that my first edit was on Dec 31, 2099. Is something weird going on? Gronk Oz (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome Gronk Oz to Teahouse! When I used the tool, it works fine and states your first edit was performed on March 19, 2014. However time to time, many issues may effect the tool, such as a high replication lag meaning the tool can't get results currently, the database is down or Tool Labs (or the server itself) maybe down. ///EuroCarGT 06:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Going off of EuroCarGT's reply, the tool is a hit or a miss for me - sometimes it takes quite a long time to load, but it usually does within a few minutes. Just loaded it now to test, and the only problem I noticed was that my deleted edits weren't counted. Loaded it with your contributions, and everything seems fine. Most of the time, waiting a few minutes and trying again will give better results. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody - I just tried again and it worked fine. Perhaps I should just put it down to being the weekend... --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The link goes to https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ec/. All the Xtools have been unstable for a month. Usually they have just timed out with a blank page. There have been many reports and the authors know about it. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: There is also a quick way to see a summary of your edit count - click on the user "Preferences" tab (which appears in different places at the top of the page depending on which skin you are using) and your summary edit count is displayed in the top section. Philg88 ^♦talk 13:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Also expanding on SuperHamster, PrimeHunter and Philg88. I got toollabs:supercount to work, however loading is quite long and may bring up similar errors. For a global count you could use Special:CentralAuth but you got to ensure you have a global account. ///EuroCarGT 17:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Opinions on open access

This might be an incredibly broad/ignorant question, but I'm curious - how do most people feel about the open access policy here? Is Wikipedia supported by people who wholeheartedly agree with its philosophy, or are most editors simply interested in contributing for the sake of contributing? If there were suddenly ads on the site one day, would it affect people's decisions to stay? Any opinions would be greatly appreciated :) Nolmagia (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nolmagia. Speaking for myself, I think that the motivations of committed editors are complex and mixed. I think most experienced editors support the philosophy underlying the project, while also enjoying writing and improving encyclopedia articles. Those are compatible motivations. As for advertising, that would be deeply controversial. I would expect royalty checks at the least. I do not think it will ever happen, though. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328: and @Nolmagia: Regarding ads; normally I wouldn't plug software that's not Wikipedia related but I recommend Adblock plus: https://adblockplus.org/ It's freeware; well supported; and it works amazingly well; it even blocks ads in many video streams such as Comedy Central. Regarding the actual question: very interesting but kind of OT for the teahouse and if I were to give my opinions they would be pretty long so for once I'll keep them to myself ;-) --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for both of your thoughts - if anyone has opinions they'd like to share, I would definitely like to hear them on my talk page instead of at the Teahouse if that's more appropriate. Nolmagia (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm always more than happy to give my opinion on just about any topic. I'll leave a few thoughts on your talk page. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Improper marking as minor edit

Recently, I edited the article "Yarmouk yudham" by adding the name of the language that it needs to be translated from. Because it only involved a change of one word, I marked the edit as minor. However, I was later reading the help page on minor edits and realized that, as a small change that affected the meaning of an article, it should not have been marked as minor. I have tried since then to change the edit summary fix my mistake, but have been unable to figure out how to do so.

Thanks in advance 140.254.245.227 (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe only logged in editors are able to mark edits as minor. It's no big deal, just be careful in the future. Take note that once you have saved the page, you can't edit your summary. Thanks for being concerned though. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Don't worry about whether you marked your edit as minor or not, it's not a huge deal if you mis-tag an edit :) Sam Walton (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll try to be more careful. Also, I was logged in when I made the edit, I just forgot to log in to ask the question. Whoops. WallAdheasion (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@WallAdheasion: Hey WallAdheasion. I agree with those above: really no big deal, and the very fact you are concerned about it implies good things about you. Just wanted to mention that while it's true you cannot change an edit summary directly, you can use a dummy edit to make a comment in a subsequent edit summary to provide missing information in a past one. for example: "Note: Last edit by me was marked "minor" in error". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Can one use references such as newspaper and magazine articles that are not on-line?Robpater (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Robpater. The short answer is "Yes", it is OK to cite offline reliable sources. Please fully cite the source, including writer, article title, publication name, city of publication (unless part of publication name), date, page number, and so on. Please also consider including a direct quotation from the offline source backing the claim, as part of the reference.

All that being said, if online sources of equal quality to the offline sources are available, then they are preferred to offline sources, to make verification easier for our readers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Robpater (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Why has my original entry not been accepted

Many months ago I posted an unsolved murder in 1999 of Mary Lazenby. My article quoted the East London Advertiser after I travelled to the Newspaper museum in Collindale to verify my article. My article was totally changed by an editor and has never been restored. My voluntary subscription to Wikipedia will soon be stopped if I don't get a sensible answer!Davidg58 (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there @Davidg58: Welcome to the Teahouse! I assume you're talking about this edit? It looks like a few editors have tried explaining the removal already on your talk page; I'd take a look at those comments for the explanation. By the looks of it, an editor removed the content you added because it replaced the proper headings for the table. Additions to Wikipedia should also be attributed to a reliable source, in order to verify information. Note how on many articles, there are numbered superscripts that, when clicked on, guide you to a respective source for that information. For more information on citing, check out Wikipedia:Citing sources and Help:Referencing for beginners.

By the looks of it, someone did restore your addition of Mary Lazenby later on - see the bottom of the table here for the entry. Let us know if you have any more questions. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Davidg58, welcome to the Teahouse. I examined all edits at Special:Contributions/Davidg58 and only found [1] which mentioned her in List of unsolved murders in the United Kingdom#1990s, but you replaced the table headings instead of adding a new table row with her (compare the table before and after your edit). Somebody cleaned it up and reworded it a little. It is now at the end of List of unsolved murders in the United Kingdom#1990s. Is that what you refer to? Above the edit box at any page you edit (also this Teahouse) is the text at MediaWiki:Editpage-head-copy-warn. It includes: "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone". Editors agree to this by saving an edit. All editors experience that others make changes to their text. If you refer to another page then can you please give the precise name of the page or the username or IP address used to edit it? I did not find anything else in my searches. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Dedirecting

Hey Everyone!

I'v been trying to create a Wikipedia article about a certain school that I know much about, but unfortunately an automated computer keeps redirecting it to the school district page. Therefore, my article is gone. I just want some help on this. Thank you!

@samanthaluvs Samanthaluvs (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Samanthaluvs: Hi Samanthaluvs. Your edits to the redirect were not reverted by an automated computer but by a human editor, who left an edit summary when they did so: "Restored redirect to school district. Middle schools are rarely notable." Please see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Your edit to the redirect contained no citations to reliable sources that are independent from the school to in any way indicate that this middle school has sufficient substantive treatment in secondary sources to evidence notability and upon which verifiable content could be based. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Samanthaluvs. Adding to the information above, we normally only keep articles about primary schools and middle schools if they are of exceptional architectural or historical significance. Appearing on a country's registry of historical buildings is one indicator that an article about that school is appropriate. Otherwise, we redirect such schools to the relevant school district article, or the section about education in the article about the appropriate city or town. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Plagarism Issue: what to do in the short term?

I've been working on the Computer-aided_software_engineering article. This section: Computer-aided_software_engineering#Risks_and_associated_controls seems to be plagarized from this web site: http://ithandbook.ffiec.gov/it-booklets/development-and-acquisition/development-procedures/software-development-techniques/computer-aided-software-engineering.aspx I plan to rewrite the text of that section using the source page but in my own words and also possibly adding other sources. But that will take me some time. I'm wondering in the mean time what is the recommended response? Just blanking the section or is it OK to leave the text for a few more days or some other solution? I know plagarism and copyright are serious issues so just want to double check. MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyvios should be dealt with as quickly as possible, so the plagiarised text should be removed immediately even if you cannot do the rewrite immediately.--ukexpat (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello MadScientistX11. I would put a Template:Copyvio at the top of the copied-and-pasted section. This template will automatically blank the contents that follow it; the documentation explains how to limit the blanking. When the new text for that section will be ready, you can add it to the article, removing the template. After that, you should also add a Template:Cclean in the talk page of the article, to notify other users that the copyright infringement has been removed. Cheers! ► LowLevel ^(talk) 18:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't know about that template. I just blanked the section but I'll revert that edit and then follow your advise. Glad I asked. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Screwed-up Wikipedia Articles

Do you recommend any articles on Wikipedia that need a lot of fixing-up? I could really help this place if you recommended some screwed-up articles to fix! Dude00007, Ph. D. (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Dude00007, there are LOTS of articles that need your awesome help. Look here: Wikipedia:Community_portal then scroll down to where it says "help out" and you will see categories of typical kinds of problems (e.g., need better references). In addition to listing articles that need various kinds of editing there is also a link next to each section that says "Learn how" that will give you guidance as to how to make the appropriate edits in case you are a new editor. Also, after you have done a few edits I recommend asking User:SuggestBot for ideas. SuggestBot looks at your editing history and then suggests similar kinds of articles that need work. The more you edit the more SuggestBot can tailor suggestions that will match your previous edits. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Dude00007, Ph. D. (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Citation and Source Issue

Greetings! I came to you in April 2013 for a noteworthy biography on animation icon Dev Ross, that was seen fit to keep. Thank you. Several people have helped to edit it along the way. Earlier this year, it has been marked for poor citation and source issues, mainly stemming from IMDb references. I was alerted to this when my daughter attended an anime conference and was told that the notation was impacting Ms Ross's career! I had to use IMDb as the Daytime Emmy award, and other sources, do not show older information. I now have found some other sources and updated them. I kindly request any help in reviewing the article, sources, and doing what it takes to remove the remarks. Producers are thinking the citations are "questionable" or "unreliable" in "the real world" not in "wikiland". I would hope this is not true, but would still like to make a solid article. Thank you! SandyC (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Smacorder. It seems that I remember that earlier conversation from well over a year ago about Dev Ross. Wikipedia has no interest in either advancing nor detracting from her career. We report and summarize what reliable sources say about her. The references now in the article are formatted better than bare URLs. But they need to be expanded into complete references, which you can learn about at Referencing for beginners. Please do not use a promotional term like "animation icon" here on Wikipedia, unless you are quoting a reliable source. We write from the Neutral point of view, and never use such promotional language in Wikipedia's voice. If you have an interest in this tòpic, then you have an obligation to do your best to improve the article, in compliance with our policies and guidelines. If you have a Conflict of interest, please declare it openly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Smacorder, in addition to the good info that Cullen328 gave you I want to reply a bit more to your question about the tags on the article. IMO they definitely still belong there. All the sources I looked at were questionable. They were all advertisements, self published, promotional, etc. To be honest I'm a little surprised no one has nominated this article for deletion. Based on the references currently there I think it's a very open question whether Ms. Ross is even wp:notable enough to merit a Wikipedia page at this point. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I did not mean to use the term, "animation icon" in a "promotional tone". It is a term associated with her, though I've only heard it in public forums, such as anime conventions, and would not know where to find it in print. It is attributed to her many awards and pioneering efforts as a woman in the field. I do not claim any conflict of interest, just many reasons why someone with merit grabbed my attention to write my first article. I'll review the items you mentioned.

MadScientistX11, please review the notes on why this article determined Ms Ross is "notable" and was not deleted. Any guidance you can give to improve the article or sources would be greatly appreciated. I've spent countless hours researching the material. Assistance in improving this article to wiki standards is always welcome. SandyC (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, SandyC. To refer to a person (or, for that matter, a building) as an "icon" is, if not promotional, evaluative, and does not belong in an encyclopaedia unless quoted from a reliable source. If the term is as widespread as you say, then I would have thought that you could find a reliable source which refers to the term (but you would need to make it clear whether the source was referring to her as an animation icon or reporting that people did so refer to her. --ColinFine (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia - what is it good for?

I have been trying to make what I hope is a positive contribution to Wikipedia - but I have been finding the whole experience frustrating. I have constructed an article about a well respected author, which many appear to appreciate, but it has been beset with constant threats of deletion. This is not my only experience of work being deleted and whilst there are many helpful and friendly editors, some seem to delete too quickly and it seems to me to be a form of legalised vandalism.

I also have 3 articles on legal topics languishing in Assessment Hell. I can think of 2 reasons for this:

No one knows if they are any good and/or
There are lots of nit-picking reasons why they might be rejected, but they are clearly on important topics that have real impact on people's lives.

I think Wikipedia needs to decide what it is for. The article on the Child Arrangements Programme contains a section on where people can get help. I have not created this list. It comes straight out of the Practice Direction the article is about. Wikipedia's technology enabled me to insert the links that will enable people to access the information they need quickly. Is that not what Wikipedia is for? Or is it rather a club for nit-picking nerds? The self congratulation society?S.tollyfield (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, S.tollyfield. Your article Paul Finch currently has no tags or efforts to delete. However, the references are poorly formatted, and some of the images in the article seem very dubious to me at first glance. I cannot imagine how a copyrighted film poster belongs in an author biography, for example. Please upgrade the references per Referencing for beginners.

As for your drafts of articles on British law topics, I have no expertise in such areas. However, a quick review of your articles shows that they read like a "how to guide". This is not what Wikipedia is for.

You have every right to be critical of Wikipedia and its standards, and if you choose that path, you will have good company. But in spite of the criticism, this is the world's #6 website, used frequently and trusted by hundreds of millions of people. You are welcome to contribute here, but if your participation is going to be productive, please make a sincere effort to learn the rules of the game. We call those our policies and guidelines, and experienced Wikipedia editors take them seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The above response makes many of my points. I wrote the article Paul Finch early. Yes I know the referencing is poor in the article. How do I know this? Helpful editors have amended the references I have made in other articles and I have tried to copy their good practice. Thanks to those guys. Showing not telling..

As for the legal articles you have no expertise but can say they read like "how to" guides. I have answered that criticism on one of the article's pages. The other 2 are summaries of the contents of Practice Directions - the actual contents - they are not a guide I have constructed. They do not tell how to actually make an application - although as I have already made clear, one of them provides links to others who could help folks with that. Is there anything wrong with that?S.tollyfield (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

About the deletion threats, I assume you are talking about Nina Allan. OK, so now you know that it is never permissible to paste copyrighted material to Wikipedia, even for a draft. But that draft was a long time ago, and the copyvio was fixed almost immediately. I have to say I fail to see the point of blanking the current version, which is fine. If anything should be blanked it should be the very first version. We really need a better system for handling this. But please don't get discouraged. Hopefully if anything is deleted it will be the offending version only, and all of your subsequent work will still be there. If not I think you will have legitimate cause for complaint, and it can be appealed. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

And this again is what I mean by helpful editing - fixing stuff, rather than just criticising it. Thanks!S.tollyfield (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Just great - drawing attention to my work has encouraged someone to stick a critical banner at the top of the Paul Finch article!! Like I can find alternative references as suggested. Thanks a bunch!! So that will be there forever now!S.tollyfield (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

S.tollyfield one thing it takes a while for new editors to get used to is the idea that on Wikipedia there is no such thing as "my work". Once you add something to the encyclopedia it belongs to everyone and any other editor has as much right to criticize and change it as any other. In the specific case of the Paul Finch article there are essentially two main alternatives: Either someone (which could be you if you got to understand Wikipedia:policies better) will address the problems that the tag is describing and then remove the tag. Or, it could be that there simply are no such independent references at this time which may mean the article needs to be significantly shrunk or possibly even deleted. But in any case, a tag on an article is not an attack from one editor to another but rather an attempt to document a problem so that the problem can be fixed and the encyclopedia can be made even better. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I raise a concern about how frustrating I find trying to contribute to Wikipedia and the initial response I get from User:Cullen328 is well "your article" Paul Finch has "no tags or efforts to delete." As though not having one page attacked was some kind of answer for the grief I've had elsewhere. Having pointed this out however it does not take other editors long to quickly descend and start deleting stuff. The article's critical banner now says that it has "multiple issues" and needless to say there is now the threat that if things are not sorted out then it may be deleted. In fact so keen are these editors to weigh in and delete stuff that a harmless heading is deleted in the process. Aesthetically the page just don't look so good no more. If I thought the editors were genuinely concerned about the topic I might be able to accept this stuff with equanimity - and let's be clear I'm not an anarchist, I agree you need rules - but frankly the message I am hearing most loudly is "if you don't play by the rules then you can't play in our playground!" Do you want to encourage folks to contribute stuff that others find useful and enjoyable or is this constant nit picking more important?S.tollyfield (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The only way that this online encyclopedia can maintain its credibility, S.tollyfield, is for its experienced, dedicated editors to work every single day in every single way to ensure that as many of its articles as possible comply with its policies and guidelines. Those are the "rules of the game" or the "rules of the road", if you don't like the game analogy. Calling the efforts of experienced editors to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia "nit picking" is a completely unpersuasive argument, in my view. To repeat my earlier advice, I suggest that you study our policies and guidelines, do your very best to comply with them, and thereby become a very useful editor. Thank you, and I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@S.tollyfield: Adding a {{Bare URLs}} template to an article is not a threat that if things are not sorted out then it may be deleted. It's just a way of letting others know that a certain problem exists. I tried to explain why Bare URLs are problematic at Talk:Paul Finch#Bare URLs and offer suggestions as to how they might be fixed. Bare URLs can be easily cleaned up and re-formatted, but all the re-formatting in the world is not going to turn an unreliable source into a reliable one. Like Cullen328 above, I don't see this as "nitpicking" at all. Moreover, while it is true, at least in my case, that your Teahouse post above did bring the article to the attention of other editors; I only see good faith attempts at trying to help and improve the article so that it does not end up getting deleted. I don't think any of the edits made were done out of spite in response to your comments about Wikipedia. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Well this what I don't get. As you say once something is out there on Wikipedia no one owns it. We all share it right? So if it is that important to clear up the URLs why don't you just get on and do it instead of leaving critical banners and comments on the Talk Page? Don't you think that might be a better approach? These banners are seriously intimidating and off putting - especially the really big ones - probably intentionally so. And regarding your comments about re-writing the section about Children's Animation why not re-write that yourself? I've dealt with other editors who take that more helpful approach - for example when adding to the Simon Clark page. That felt like a much more collaborative experience, rather than this one which just seems to be a lot of lectures from the prefectsS.tollyfield (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@S.tollyfield: I certainly wasn't trying to intimidate you or anyone else. I posted on the talk page simply because I prefer in many cases to to discuss things before going and being bold. I really don't see anything wrong, intimidating or threatening about adding clean up tags or about making good faith suggestions for improvements on an article's talk page. On the other hand, I personally find it to be quite helpful and collaborative when another editor does that, but maybe I am the exception to the rule. Anyway, my comments were not intended to offend you, so if they did then I apologize.

- Marchjuly (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

For a moment there I was prepared to believe that things were okay and Wikipedia was not the petty place I was thinking it was. The reply from User:Marchjuly is probably more gracious than I deserve and I noticed some positive edits on the page Paul Finch. But there is always someone who just has to get in there and carry on deleting stuff. Now it is the image Paul Finch Silhouette.png which I put some time into creating. Of course I have appealed for the reasons I give. Then another editor comes along and also says the image will be deleted because it is not attached to any article!! I do not want to have to be spending my time constantly fighting Big Brother when it could be used more constructively. Who wants to contribute to Wikipedia when the knee-jerk reaction is just to delete stuff constantly and let the minnows try and fight to put it back?S.tollyfield (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes copyright issues very seriously, the image you created incorporates someone else's photograph with no evidence of permission. If it was my photograph I would not be remotely pleased. Theroadislong (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: Have you read the appeal? Paul Finch is perfectly happy with itS.tollyfield (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Did Paul Finch take the photograph? Theroadislong (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Using someone's work to incorporate it into your own work still is a copyright issue. To utilize someone's work as Theroadislong said you must be given permission to it in a form, for example at WP:CONSENT. In Wikipedia using someone's work for a derivative work, then it must be published under a free license. Remember the photographer is the copyright holder, not the subject itself, unless it's a self taken picture. ///EuroCarGT 20:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It's understandable when editors get frustrated when the person in the portrait says "Sure! Go ahead!" but the rules won't allow it. But the people dealing with image copyright issues are overworked and dealing with a flood of image submissions coming out the general blogging culture, where it's OK to just grab a photo off the Internet. Here we can't do that, and the rules are the only defense against it. On Wikipedia, we can't use a portait unless it has an explicit license that says it's completely free, allowing modifications and derivative works for any purpose. There is a form for that, where the copyright holder explicitly declares the image free. The copyright people need the form because otherwise it's just too much work and we can't ask them to get into interpretations and arguments around particular cases. It's all too much for me, so if an image isn't free in the first place (you can check on Google with Images > Search tools > Usage rights), I just forget about it and do something else. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I clearly made a big mistake in sticking my head over the parapet. One editor is clearly working his way through my contributions and is now threatening me with blocking.S.tollyfield (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Just in case anyone thinks I'm just being paranoid about this none of the illustrations that were on the page Paul Finch before I started this discussion on 22 November 2014 are there any more. That is 8 illustrations all deleted. The 3 there now are all new onesS.tollyfield (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The images were removed by User:Audacity because they were non-free media: These images should only be used in articles about these works - see Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria#8) You have also added copyrighted content to Long Time Dead (Torchwood) which I politely warned you about.Theroadislong (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: This is no reply to why all the images were deleted including the free ones. It is not a reply to why you did not edit the items on Long Time Dead (Torchwood) rather than just delete them. If it was polite why did you see the need to threaten blocking straight away? And it is no answer to why you appear to believe that my contributions appear to require particular attention at this timeS.tollyfield (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@S.tollyfield: Regarding Torchwood; this is something we hear often in the Teahouse: "Look at this crappy article; mine was no worse!" The fact is that Wikipedia is huge and the standards aren't always uniformly applied. So it's possible to find other content that often has as many or more issues as anything pointed out on content you created. The correct answer in such a case is to fix that other content too not to pick the lowest common denominator as the new norm. Here is an article that explains that: wp:other stuff exists As for the "threats" to block you; there are consequences for people who don't follow some basic Wikipedia policies. Letting editors know about such consequences is simply rational and fair. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: You folks really aren't getting this. Yeah I get it that if the edit at Long Time Dead (Torchwood) had been the only edit User:Theroadislong had done on any of my work I couldn't complain - but it ain't! He or she has done a load of other negative edits on Paul Finch and then moved on to this next article. I keep hearing about the Wikipedia policies. Isn't there one for this sort of behaviour? It all started after I expressed a sense of discouragement and I've had nothing but these edits ever since. All legitimate in isolation, but frankly now getting oppressive.S.tollyfield (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@S.tollyfield: I'm sorry but you are the one who isn't getting it. Anyone can edit anything on Wikipedia. As I commented to you much earlier on this thread there is really no such thing on Wikipedia as "your work". Once it's in the encyclopedia anyone can edit it. So you have no legitimate gripe against anyone for doing too much editing on "your work". Your only legitimate complaint would be if for some reason the changes that @Theroadislong: made were not in accordance with wikipedia:policies Speaking of policies I realize I should just step away from the horse at this point. But I would like to close by saying the last words to this thread should be (although I have a feeling they won't be) -- "Absolutely Everything! Say it again!" --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: The policy complained under would be Wikihounding, but you win I just want out. Congratulations!S.tollyfield (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

How do I delete an account completely?

Unfortunately my User account has generated far too much negative attention. I have no interest in pushing this to the next level of complaint. Can someone please advise me how to completely remove this account so that it no longer exists and I cease to receive any messages from this account?S.tollyfield (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Try going to Preferences (top of the page) and removing your email address. Then save. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Demiurge1000: The option appears to only be to change the email address. I want this account gone completely. No traceS.tollyfield (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted but they can be renamed and some or all of their userspace pages deleted. See Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Change your email address to example@example.com and then no-one and nothing should be able to email you. example.com is a Wikipedia article about this functionality. You will not, for obvious reasons, be able to confirm that change of email address. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Have used the Retired option. Thanks and GoodbyeS.tollyfield (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)