The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.
Published Page shows my UserPage Name, NOT the title of the Article[edit]
I logged in successfully, though for the first time in many years. I posted a new article but the published page shows my UserPage Name-- User:Scholar1000 and NOT the Title of the Article-- Steve Farrell. After reading directions I could not find a MOVE option to get the Title Right, perhaps because I am not auto-confirmed? How do I get this page posted/ moved with the right title? which should be Steve Farrell. I tried submitting at MoveRequests but that did not "take" either. You will see this article on Wikipedia at User:Scholar1000 whereas the title of the pages should be Steve Farrell. Please advise Scholar1000 (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest you start by reading Help:Your first article. As it stands, moving the page to article space will almost certainly result in it being moved back as a draft clearly not in compliance with requirements to demonstrate notability through significant coverage in sources independent of the subject himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm an elderly retired economics professor who does know of the subjects important work in conscious business, so I did volunteer to process his data, at a recent online public conference (Conscious Business Institute) -- I don't think that's a conflict of interest but I DO agree that if one was going to post this successfully the information provided needs to have significant references from sources other than those directly connected to him. Scholar1000 (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We could debate whether you have a conflict of interest, but I believe most experienced Wikipedians would probably say that you do. However, that will not matter if you're unable to establish how the subject is Wikipedia notable. Maybe take a look at Wikipedia:Notability and perhaps even WP:NOBLE for some general information on Wikipedia notability. Then, if you still feel like the subject is Wikipedia notable, I suggest you use Wikipedia:Articles for creation to try and create such an article. Once you've created a "draft", you can copy-and-paste what you've already done onto the draft's page and then continue working on things there. When you think the draft is ready for article status, you can click the "Submit" button at the top of the draft and someone will review and assess it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a copyright violation, plagiarism, or neither?[edit]
Recently discovered that most of United States Air Force Academy Cadet Wing, specifically, the sub-sections describing the squadron patches (40 of them) are directly ripped, word-for-word, from the Air Force Academy's official website. For example, see this link for Squadron 1, this link for Squadron 2, and so on. Is this allowed? Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fred Zepelin. Works created by employees of the U.S. federal government are in the public domain, so there are no copyright issues in this case. There may be plagiarism issues if the content is not properly attributed. Cullen328 (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not attributed, as far as I can see. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Fred Zepelin. Doing such a thing is typically not allowed and is considered a copyright violation per Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Under US copyright law, however, content created by US federal government employees as part of their official duties is considered to be within the public domain. Since the website you've linked to above appears to be an official US Air Force website, the original content (text and images) on it is probably not protected by copyright (unless it specifically states otherwise, e.g. third-party content the website is hosting). So, even though the original text content of that website might be in the public domain, it still needs to be properly attributed per Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources and WP:Plagiarism if used verbatim in Wikipedia for it to not be considered inappropriate. Another problem is that such content wasn't originally written for Wikipedia; so, regardless of its copyright status, it's overall tone or style might not be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Generally, it's better take text content found in sources and summarize it in one's own words for Wikipedia's purposes. If you feel you can do that while still reflecting the source and the context it's being used, then feel free to do so. Just leave an clear edit summary explaining what you did and why. Finally, the images are probably OK from a copyright standpoint, but the way they're being displayed in the article may need to be reassessed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm understanding from this is that it is not a copyright violation, but it IS plagiarism, as the content was about 99% copied word-for-word from the 40 individual squadron pages on the US military's website, and not attributed as such. Should I remove it? Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Fred Zepelin, throwing hats into the air upon graduation surely isn't typical of cadet status, which I suspect has a lot more of sitting behind a table as someone older talks. Perhaps choose something from Category:United States Air Force Academy that is more representative of the United States Air Force Academy Cadet Wing than is the "Guys (no women) shouting as they threw their hats into the air twenty years ago" photo? -- Hoary (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]Yes. And its overall tone or style is not in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This Wikipedia article reads like advertising bumf. Unsheathe your editorial machete and hack away at the thing. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can provide attribution and from a copyright standpoint that should be enough to avoid the need for revision deletions. However, using the content as is might not be the best thing to do from an encyclopedic standpoint. So, if you rewrite it, you can just cite the the website as the source for the content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fred Zepelin: No, you should not remove it. We must preemptively remove stuff immediately only if it is a copyvio, which this is not. Instead, you should immediately attribute it, to remedy the plagiarism. As a completely separate issue, you (or someone) should begin improving it to make it more encyclopedic. The differences here (in order of time-critical importance): copyvio: immediately remove to comply with the law. Plagiarism: Attribute to meet our ethical obligations. Copyedit: bring the material up to our editorial standards. -Arch dude (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Hoary here - the text that was copied was 99% about the squadron's patches and not about the squadrons themselves. I don't think it serves any useful purpose on Wikipedia. All of it is available on the military's website anyway. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to find some information about an obscure early Buddhist school called the Pubbaseliya. Wikipedia not unsurpringly suggested it was merely mentioned in the article on Early Buddhist schools and gave me a preview of the passage in which the word supposedly occurs. CTRL+F failed to find that word in the article, or in older versions of the article. Copying all the text into a text editor and searching for it there also failed to find it. It's not very important as I'm sure I can find information elsewhere, but why is the preview showing text that seemingly doesn't appear in the article? Shantavira|feed me 09:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im relatively new here and I just completed my 1st article by following the wikipedia guidelines and also completed the 10 edits. However, I discovered my 1st article was deleted. Could you please shed more ligths on this.
Regards,
Wale Ajayi Wljy (talk). 10:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the comments on your talk page? Wikipedia cannot be used as an advertising platform. Shantavira|feed me 10:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My article is a biography and not an advert. Wljy (talk). 10:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wljy: If this is about User:Wljy/sandbox, that was deleted under speedy deletion criterion U5, which states that you were using Wikipedia as a webhost, which is not allowed. It was also nominated for speedy deletion under criterion G11, which means that the nominating editor thought it was blatantly promotional and not worth salvaging without starting from scratch; however, that was not included in the deletion reason.
Thanks Wljy (talk). 10:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is your association with Mr. Olayinka?
I can view your deleted draft; Wikipedia is not a place to tell about someone and their accomplishments. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic and what makes it important/significant/influential as a notable person. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No direct link. I'm newly introduced to how wikipedia works and decided to try my hands on it.
Im a freelance researcher and opinion writer on online media. See attached
You claimed the professionaly taken images of Mr. Olayinka as your own work, so either you have a connection with him or you improperly used the images. Which is it? 331dot (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The picture was pulled from his Linkedln page with his permission for a referenced article. Wljy (talk). 11:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you are associated with him. You must read WP:COI and WP:PAID.
As I said, you claimed the images as your own personal work. If you did not take the images, you can't do that. Mr. Olayinka can't necessarily grant permission to use his image, as copyright is typically held by the photographer, not the subject of the image. At least one of the images is watermarked with the photography agency that took them. If his contract with the photographer assigns him the copyright, he must be the one to upload the image, or at least you must demonstrate that the image is made available with a copyright compatible with Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My article is a well-researched biography and a summary of referenced independent reliable sources. I have studied the pattern of few other biographies and I have edited some as well. The individual im writing a notable person. Wljy (talk). 11:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody who can write "His belief in peaceful co-existence is unparalleled" in a proposed Wikipedia biography is in any way qualified to tell more experienced contributors what is or isn't 'notable'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have not formatted your citations correctly (which is understandable as a newcomer) but as a professional journalist you must realise that this source is the worst sort of "puff piece" that cannot possibly be used as the basis for an encyclopaedic entry. It is full of the sort of language that Wikipedia calls WP:PEACOCK writing and is to be avoided. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your observation is well-noted.
Thank you. Wljy (talk). 11:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that you're probably missing, Wljy, is that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
The other thing I would say is that making 10 edits and being here for 4 days (i.e. having autoconfirmed status) means that you have the technical ability to create an article directly. It does not say that you have the knowledge of Wikipedia necessary to create an article that stays. I always advise new editors to spend a few months making improvements to existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works, before they even try the challenging task of creating a new Wikipedia article. I would also advise anybody who hasn't already got a track record of successfully creating articles here to go through the AFC process rather than try and create new articles directly. --ColinFine (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is helpful.
Many thanks.
is it possible to get mentorship from experienced editors like you? Wljy (talk). 11:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a mentorship scheme which as a new editor you should be able to access at Special:homepage. You may need to set that up in your preferences. However, for most questions of a general nature, you would be better off continuing to ask here at the Help Desk or at the WP:TEAHOUSE as there are a larger number of experienced people watching these and you may get a quicker response. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Wljy (talk). 12:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Coat-racking in on the conversation) Thanks for this discussion. They answered a lot of questions I posed over at BLP Noticeboard: Terry Waldo but received no replies. Taking in the above advice, it would seem that the article I am presently debating on heavily revising (scrubbing) may fall into this category. Thanks all. Maineartists (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst doing some linting fixes, I came across Backpressure routing. During reading the article, something didn't feel right about the tone. So, I followed the docs and ran it through the Copyvio Detector, which returned a 92.6% similarity.
The docs say to contact the author of the article, but they don't appear to be active on Wikipedia anymore. I've also looked at removing the text, but it's a technical subject I'm not familar and I'm not comfortable editing the article. What's the best way to proceed? LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LicenceToCrenellate: The article was started in 2013 and the paper was published in 2014, so whoever evaluates this will need to also see if it's a reverse copyvio. -Arch dude (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, why does this help desk have a short desc of "Process to make one's wishes come true" when that text is nowhere to be found on this page? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you get no response and if you have tested you new code sufficiently to prove that it works as it should, be bold.
It doesn't. The short description is "Community page for questions and assistance relating to Wikipedia". Where are you seeing that string? ColinFine (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Lisa Skurow. My grandfather with last name Skurow lived in Mariupol - at that time around 1910's was Russia - left Mariupol and ultimately came to the USA - Baltimore, Maryland. He was sponsored by Skurow's in Baltimore and Cincinnati.
My daughter, Abby Skurow is having a Bat Mitzvah October 14, 2023 in Las Vegas, Nevada. How can I found out information about Skurow, Poland a small village outside Warsaw to determine if it is part of her heritage. 68.104.5.254 (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a help page for questions about editing and using Wikipedia, not for general knowledge.
However, we have a (very short) article Skurów. If there is more information you want, I suggest you ask at the Reference desk - but be more specific about what kind of information you are looking for. ColinFine (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my recent translation of Hanna (Russian singer), one or two of the tables turned out to be wonky once I published it. I tried to understand what went wrong, but I can't seem to find a solution to it. Is this the right forum to ask for help fixing it? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Losipov (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perfectly okay forum, be bold, someone will let you know if it isn't .
@Losipov It is perfectly OK to use foreign-language sources in such an article, particularly if no equivalent English source exists, but it would really help readers if you added the parameter |trans-title to give the English version of the title of the major citations. There are also parameters |quote and |trans-quote which work with some citation templates and can be useful. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Losipov, there was a template error at the bottom of "Singles" section. If a section is divided in columns, there needs to be an ending template or all of the other sections that follow will appear in columns also. I added end to the template and article sections are no longer messed up. Cmr08 (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An unpublished article that appears in Research Gate (and another database called Lexis in the original Italian), presents a new solution to the Metabasis paradox. I'm not the author of the article in Research Gate, so I cannot even take credit for the new solution although I produced it independently 5 years after the author. Is it allowed to add this theory to Metabasis paradox or would the article have to be published? It would at least be useful to readers to know about it. Could it be placed with a note saying it's unpublished? Best wishes, cdg1072 Cdg1072 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cdg1072 I would assume that anything available in ResearchGate is "published" in the sense that it is now available on the web: and can be cited as such. Whether the article is reliable in the Wikipedia sense is a different question: that article is presumably not peer-reviewed. However, we sometimes use {{Cite arXiv}}, which has similar issues. While secondary sources are preferred, Wikipedia does allow primary sources in some circumstances (see WP:PRIMARY.) Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. The author, who last worked in Lausanne, Switzerland, has also not been contacted so she wouldn't know that her unpublished idea was being described. But her piece has now sat unpublished for nearly 10 years. It is as though she had no intention of ever publishing it, and given its very high quality, it is surprising if it was never peer-reviewed. The author states the theory as well, or nearly as well, as I could. Cdg1072 (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to work with a 3rd party to create a Wikipedia page for my company?[edit]
I am working with a company who claims that they can help me navigate the process of creating a wikipedia page for my company. Now they are claiming that I will have to pay extra to another 3rd party company in order to accomplish "Wiki-Linking" on our listing. It is sounding like a scam? Should I be able to create a wikipedia listing myself and accomplish linking? Thanks! Gutterbrush (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gutterbrush Be advised that Wikipedia does not have "pages for companies" but articles about companies. Those articles must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself, only in what others say about it. If you pay someone to edit about your company, it is no different than you doing so, the editor must comply with the paid editing policy, a Terms of Use requirement. Do not hand over one penny to this company; what you described is a scam. My advice, instead of working to get a Wikipedia article, just go on about the business of your company and allow an article to organically develop and be written by independent editors who take note of coverage of your company. Trying to force the issue does not usually work. There are good reasons to not want an article. 331dot (talk)
To be precise about "wiki-linking", from the context it sounds like paying to have someone insert links from other Wikipedia articles to the article on your company, in an attempt to make it appear more legitimate. Any editor has the technical capacity do this, but it could violate Wikipedia policies if the links were promotional, unnecessary or otherwise inappropriate. The company you're talking about couldn't prevent other editors from removing these links if they were perceived as inappropriate.
To be somewhat blunter than what's already been said, if you have to engage a paid editor to write an article about your company rather than wait for a volunteer to write about it on their own initiative, your company is extremely unlikely to merit a Wikipedia page. You are likely to overestimate how significant your company is. If you try to have an article written anyway, it will probably not be accepted.
To avoid self-promotion, Wikipedia has particularly strong guidelines for articles on companies: they must cite multiple high-quality sources providing in-depth and independent coverage. Rehashed press releases are not acceptable. Most companies do not meet this standard. – Teratix₵ 22:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpeg)
.