Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 463

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page.

Archive 460

Archive 461

Archive 462

→

Necessary Permissions for file usage

Hi, I want to upload an image which I've gotten verbal consent to use. It is a logo for a high school. However, I wanted to know what I need from the school's administrators in order to give accurate permissions to use it on Wiki? Nmalekal (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Nmalekal, welcome to the Teahouse. In order for Wikipedia to use an image, we generally require that the images be free content. This means that the copyright owners must not only allow Wikipedia to use the image, but also allow anyone to use, modify, and distribute it. However, Wikipedia policy allows you to use non-free images as long as they satisfy the non-free content criteria. In the case of a high school's official logo, it is okay to upload the logo to Wikipedia without asking for permission, because a logo is the most recognizable icon of an organization, and thus has no non-free equivalent and would greatly improve the reader's understanding of the organization, satisfying the non-free content criteria. So, I would encourage you to use the File Upload Wizard to upload the logo right away. In step 3 of the Wizard, select the option that reads: This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use. The Wizard will guide you on the next steps. If you get stuck or are confused, feel free to ask for clarification here at the Teahouse. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Mz7! I will do that. May I ask what all entails Fair Use?

Nmalekal (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nmalekal: Wikipedia's internal guidelines on non-free content are much stricter than fair use in copyright law, as I understand it. Non-free content is only appropriate on Wikipedia where no free content could adequately convey the same meaning and where it would greatly benefit the reader's understanding of the subject matter. Logos would generally be appropriate to upload as non-free content on Wikipedia, since they usually have no-free equivalent and are essential to identifying an organization/product/service. If an article is about a music album, it would generally be appropriate to upload and include that album's cover art, since it would be contextually significant to build the reader's understanding of that album. Other examples of appropriate fair use images on Wikipedia are listed at WP:NFCI. Hope this helps. Mz7 (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:RP Davies

I reviewed Draft:RP Davies and declined it, saying that if he met boxing notability guidelines, the draft should clearly refer to one of those criteria with a footnote to a reliable source. User: Fy6lancs then posted: Hi I have been referred to the notable section for boxers on wikipedia. However, I can point to an number of boxers that do not meet these criteria that are on wikipedia. For example, Jack Arnfield, Matty Askin etc.

This sounds like an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Do other experienced editors agree? They may have been added directly to article space rather than submitted via AFC, and no one has noticed that they do not meet notability guidelines. They may be waiting to be nominated at Articles for Deletion. If an athlete isn’t notable, an AFC reviewer isn’t likely to accept the article. Do other editors have comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The only comment I would add would be to point Fy6lancs towards Wikipedia:Deletion policy for information on how to nominate the non-notable articles for deletion. Alternatively, if they want to provide a list of those articles they object to, I can look at them and nominate them if appropriate. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

They named two. However, when the author of a declined draft points to other stuff, they aren't saying that the other stuff should be deleted, but that the other stuff should be a basis for getting their draft accepted, and we have to tell them that the other stuff isn't a basis for getting their draft accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that, but if we can identify and deal with articles that shouldn't exist, then two birds can be killed with one stone. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The author of the draft doesn't want to kill any birds, but to set a caged bird free. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Fy6lancs, you need to look for significant coverage of the subject in reliable, independent sources. Your best bet is probably finding articles about him (rather than just interviews) in (preferably national, not local) newspapers or boxing magazines. I've had a look and haven't been able to find much, but you likely know the places to look better than me. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Is my company Wikipedia article ready to be published?

Hello,

I have a draft of the wikipedia article for my company here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sublet.com

This is my first contribution, and I would like to know if I send it over to be published as it currently exists, will it be accepted or rejected?

please note that I work for this company, do not own it, and have found it to be notable, particularly because it was a digital space for short term rental leasing over a decade before the concept became popular with new internet companies.

Thank you

JackGlore (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

JackGlore, welcome to Teahouse. It is highly highly doubtful that a subsidiary of a non notable company would be notable. In any case, the article does not in its present form meet the notability standard for companies, CORP. Also, if your job includes marketing, publicity or web management, you are personally in violation of Wikimedia's terms of service. John from Idegon (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks John. I am a temp employee working technical support. Is that ok? I didn't mean to break any TOS, I just thought it would good to learn this skill and found a notable reason to try. JackGlore (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

JackGlore: Doesn't sound like you are in violation of the paid editing section of the TOS, and thank you for your upfront declaration of your COI. I'll leave you some notes on handling COI on your talk page. You seem to have a very common misconception of what notability means. It does not in any way relate to what either your or my subjective opinion of the subjects importance, accomplishment, or fame is. Instead, it is the relatively objective standard of the subject's coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. In short, if this organization has not been discussed in detail in multiple reliable sources, completely independent of the organization, you can't get an article published on it. For companies and organizations, there is an additional requirement that the sources come from a geographically disperse area. (Undoubtedly, this additional requirement stems from the idea that every mom and pop place in every community does not need to be covered in an international encyclopedia like this.) Also, your draft sounds promotional to me. A dryer, less talky, style would help. Another host here has a wonderful piece of advice... Use what you know to find sources, then forget everything you know and just report on what the sources you have say. John from Idegon (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice John. I will study the TOS more thouroughly, and work to improve the style of the content to better match the Wikipedia manner. By any chance, do you know if it is acceptable to send the link to others who will then submit the article if they deem it notable? There are a lot of third party nonbiased sources on the company in newspapers across the years, but I would prefer, based on what you have written, to allow others to finish it and work on articles I have had no relationship with in the future. Thank you JackGlore (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Is Draft:Barbara Yeaman still under review?

I made edits to Draft:Barbara Yeaman yesterday morning and resubmitted the article for review. I am not certain whether the article is actually currently under review or if I need to take additional action in order to continue to move it toward publication. Thanks for your help. Krista.Gro (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, your draft is in the queue for review (along with more than 400 other drafts). --David Biddulph (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. Krista.Gro (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I accepted it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

And I have done some additional work on it, per MOS.--ukexpat (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Well done, Krista.Gro. Thank you for helping to improve the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for guiding me through the process and improving Barbara's page.Krista.Gro (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Correct verb tense for reference to old-time radio programs

Does Wikipedia have a rule regarding whether present tense or past tense should be used for a verb with regard to an old-time radio program? I am curious because someone changed the lead in Granby's Green Acres from "Granby's Green Acres was a radio situation comedy in the United States. It was broadcast on CBS July 3, 1950-August 21, 1950, ..." to "Granby's Green Acres is a radio situation comedy in the United States. It was broadcast on CBS July 3, 1950-August 21, 1950, ..."

My view is that past tense is appropriate for a program once it ceases being broadcast regularly, even though it still exists in archival form. I don't know, however, where to find a Wikipedia rule or guideline that would apply in this situation. Much of my work on Wikipedia involves old-time radio, so I will appreciate clarification on this topic. Eddie Blick (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, Eddie Blick. I tend to be of your mind myself, but the Wikipedia Manual of Style, at MOS:TENSE, says otherwise (note the second bulleted example, in particular). Deor (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the pointer to the tense rule. I wasn't aware of that rule, but the second example definitely applies. I appreciate your help. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

content removed

Some time ago (march 2015) I submitted information and images that were initially posted and then subsequently removed by others than ourselves from the "Solar Air Heat" Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_air_heat.

Why was our information removed? More importantly how do we get it reposted? The majority of the information and images we provided at the time was unbiased, factual information and when asked by Wikipedia to remove some of our specific brand info did in fact further refine the information we proffered to remove all but the necessary brand information (where our patented products' features applied) yet a competitor, Solarwall, continues to have its brand and images blatantly exposed and the added new, relevant information we provided on the subject of solar air heating removed?

We had found it rather difficult trying to keep up with the email exchange with those editing our information. Wikipedia is not the easiest to navigate. I would ask that Wikipedia please, immediately repost the information that we had provided without further delay for the betterment of your readers knowledge - architects and engineers in particular, our technology and overall Greenhouse Gas Reduction for our planet Earth.

64.179.211.23 (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

In March 2015, an editor called MatrixAIr made several edits to the article Solar air heat, promoting a company called Matrix Energy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should not be used for promotion, so MatrixAIr's additions were quite properly removed. There is some further information here about the removal of images uploaded by MatrixAIr. Maproom (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

But thank you for pointing out the equally unacceptable promotion of your competitor. I have deleted this from the article. Maproom (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Question directed to John from Idegon

Marcdav10 (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)First, thank you for helping to "Wikify" my submission. I have copies of articles I researched to come up with facts about Dennis Harp. Some have dates. Others don't. Could you please advise whether I should paste copy of articles to send to Wikipedia so they can verify facts. Should I re-do by copy and pasting and adding to what you contributed to my submission? Any assistance is appreciated.Marcdav10 (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You should not "paste" copies of articles. If you know the date, publisher, etc., of an article, you can use it as a reference, supplying information which will allow readers with access to a good library to verify it. If you don't have this information, you can't use it. Maproom (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

When you supply a reference in a Wikipedia article, it should be placed immediately after the statement which it supports. I have done this for one of the references in Draft:Dennis Harp. Maproom (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation page for acronym — 2 terms, same acronym, same article

We have an article orally disintegrating tablet which is synonymous to orally dissolving tablet, which redirects to that article. Both terms are common and share the commonly used acronym ODT. We have a disambiguation page for ODT which lists orally disintegrating tablet. Is it reasonable to list orally dissolving tablet there too, with the link going to orally disintegrating tablet? Thanks. — Box73 (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. No, in general we don't include redirects like that in a disambiguation page, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Piping and redirects. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I've added "orally dissolving tablet" to the description on the dab page, without a separate link, as an alternative expansion (since it's so given in the article). Deor (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks fellows. I was confused as this case seemed even more unique than MOS illustrated. Thanks for the fix too. — Box73 (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

What is the longest IP ban?

Im looking at this IP user and this school block is for 3 years. Is this the longest ever ban for an IP address? Winterysteppe (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

We have some that are blocked indefinitely, though most of them are probably open proxies. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I have asked the blocking admin why the block is so long. It might be an open proxy. It might be a selection error by the blocking admin. Admins do make good-faith errors and this may be one of them. Unless there is something that we don't see (such as an open proxy or more vandalism from other addresses in the range), it might have been a mistake, such as intending three weeks or three months. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The blocking admin has answered. There were previous shorter blocks, and each time the address came off block, there would be new vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding up the default times for each block option (ignoring the option to enter in a unique time), it's about 6 years, 11 months, 4 days, and 22 hours. There are plenty of users who have been around at least that long. Hypothetically, an IP address that kept getting escalating blocks could arrive at an indefinite block in just under seven years (though they usually take up IP hopping or sockpuppetry before that happens). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You can see the block history without asking the blocking admin, merely by looking at the block log (link at the top of the contributions page). In this case you can see the series of 7 blocks. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, different administrators have different views about the length of school blocks. The problem with very long school blocks is that there is a lot of collateral damage because innocent students and innocent teachers are also blocked. However, the block should be a soft block in nearly all cases, so that innocent students and teachers can avoid the block by using a registered account. Some administrators give shorter blocks, and some give escalating blocks, partly on the grounds that the school itself is negligent in allowing its students to vandalize Wikipedia. (The school's network administrator should be able to determine, from its own logs, what human being engaged in the vandalism, and take appropriate action, and some Wikipedia administrators think that the failure to do so by the school is negligence. I mostly agree.) Robert McClenon (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:NIRU Group

I reviewed Draft:NIRU Group and declined it as needing additional independent reliable sources not associated with the company, and said that the formatting needed improvement. It was then nominated for speedy deletion, and the speedy deletion tag removed. It was then resubmitted and declined on notability grounds. User: Oriabr then wrote to my talk page:

Hello, Per your comments on my draft, i would like to point out my referances to reliable independed sources such as:  Rapaport (diamonds.net) which is: - The primary source of diamond price information - online news and market analysis - The world’s largest diamond trading network with over $7 billion of daily listings  wikipedia itself has referance to NIRU on de beers 'Sight Holder' value (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sightholder)  Debeers group- world’s leading diamond company  The Israel Diamond Institute- represents all organizations and institutions involved in Israel’s diamond industry. I wrote the article as non-comersialized as possible so you would not consider it as marketing purpose. if you think that a specific part is marketing oriented- please point it out and I will fix it accordingly. In conclustion, I think that NIRU Group is noteable due to its great acchivments and its presanse in the diamond world. I hope that you can reconsider.

I would prefer to see at least one independent article describing the NIRU Group that is not itself affiliated with the diamond industry, preferably two or more. Also, the author raises the issue of NIRU Group being a De Beers Sightholder. I have two issues there. First, I don’t think that status automatically confers notability. Second, even if it does, a footnote should be in this article, and not merely a cross-reference to another Wikipedia article. Does anyone else have any additional comments?

Also, see the comments of ColinFine below. The fact that, after a break from Wikipedia of five years, you are now writing an article about one company which you say is notable due to its great achievements and presence makes me wonder whether you work for the company.

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Permissions for file usage

Hi! I am writing an article about a synagogue, and I found a great image of the inside of their sanctuary and the art in it-both of which I talk about in the article. I couldn't find anywhere on the website where I got them about licensing. If I want to use one of the images (I'm putting the link below) what permissions do I need? And do I put it in as art or a photograph, since it is a photograph of art? Or is it public domain because in person you can see it for free? http://www.tobikahn.com/emanu-el-b-nai-jeshurun.html Thank you so much!Jennaxel (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jennaxel. That is the website of the artist and such photographs are automatically copyrighted at the moment of publication. No formal copyright notice is required under current law. These photos could only be used if the artist and photographer release rights under an acceptable Creative Commons license, which is unlikely. It would be best if you took your own photos of the synagogue, and uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good-thanks!Jennaxel (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You could make an external link to the website. That would allow readers to see the pictures and not infringe any copyright. Emeraude (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

i wana make a article about a game but i do not own the copyrights of the characters and/or the game

Baiscley i saw a button saying "I own this work" but when i saw that i clicked cancel cause i dont own the rights the game is called Soccer Spirit and the character is luka i need help making it talk to me in talkThenightcorecrafter (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It is perfectly legal to create articles about things you don't own the rights to. You may not, however, upload images you don't own the rights to. Ethanlu121 (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

In fact, Thenightcorecrafter, it is best not to write about things that you do own the rights to, because that would imply a conflict of interest. Writing about things that interest you but which you are independent from is the best approach. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually since there is no article on Soccer Spirit, the game, it is premature to write an article on one of its characters. Try writing an article about the game first before focusing on one character, Thenightcorecrafter. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional link to free copy of source?

In the lemma 'Lehmer-Schur algorithm' the reference 'Wilf(1978)' the doi-number is given. This number brings one to the site of the publisher where only limited acces to the article is possible. I found a link 'https://www.math.upenn.edu/~wilf/website/Global%20bisection.pdf' that gives the full text. My question: should such a link also be mentioned in the reference? Windeman (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Windeman ! You can add this in the URL parameter. It would be helpful to the readers. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Windeman, that link doesn't actually work for me. Could you check it again? Whether we should link to a freely accessible version of an article depends on its copyright status. WP:ELNEVER specifies that material that violates the copyrights of others should not be linked. I suspect this may be the case in this instance. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, there's a stray character at the end of the link you posted. Removing that makes it work. The article appears to be covered by copyright, so it should not be linked to in my opinion. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry. I do not think there will be a problem in adding the URL. I and some others who work on animal articles often need to use journals as a source. We often mention the URL along with the DOI to help readers, we have no trouble with that. What we need to ensure is that there is no copyvio in the article. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 19:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Sainsf, WP:ELNEVER clearly states that we should not link to copyright violations. If someone has posted a copy of an article online without permission to do so, surely that is a copyright violation? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The article link was to a copy published by the author himself on his university's website, so I would doubt whether it was a copyright violation. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The copyright is signed over to the publisher by the author. The publisher holds the copyright. I have had to seek permission to use my own photos in a second piece of work which I had previously published in a scientific paper. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Like David Biddulph I am not sure either. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 06:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The author has what seems like a complete list of papers on the university website [1], almost all with pdf links. Seems like a good indication that these are made publicly available. I don't think we need to be holier than the university here? AFAIK, I could put up full copies of my papers on my private website, and no publisher could gainsay it. I DO have full and public copies on ResearchGate, and so do many many other scientists.-- Elmidae (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Editing questions

Hello. I have been editing a while, however I don't know how to do something basic. You know when someone would say something like "→‎History" after editing with the arrow linking to #History to show where they've edited, how do you do this? Stevenbfg (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Stevenbfg, welcome to the Teahouse. It happens automatically if you click an edit link at a section heading and keep the automatic edit summary which will say something like /* History */. You can add your own edit summary to the right of that. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I have created a page about one organization but it is still showing "may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline."

Hi I tried creating a page about one organization but it is still showing "may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline." I had attached different news link to as references, kindly let me know how to take it forward.Arifbasheer (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Arifbasheer. The notices at the top of HealthCare Global Enterprises Ltd (HCG) and B.S. Ajaikumar are placed there by editors, and may be removed by any editor when they think the issue has been dealt with - there is nothing automatic about them. In principle, you may remove them - but I urge you not to do so, as you do not have the experience to tell when the issues are fixed. The problem with the references you have added to the HCG article is that, although they both appear in what are probably reliable publications, both of them appear to be based on press releases from the company. What is required is that people who have no connection with the company have decided that the company is sufficiently notable to research and write articles without direct input from the company.

Like many new editors, you have launched straight into one of the most difficult jobs in Wikipedia: creating new articles. I would strongly suggest that you

Read Your first article
Look for reliable independent and substantial sources about HCG and Ajaikumar. If you can find several such, then move your drafts to draft space (eg Draft:Healthcare Global Enterprises Ltd) and work on them there. If you cannot, then give up, as they are not at present notable in Wikipedia's eyes.

The fact that you have come to Wikipedia and immediately created articles on a company and its CEO makes me wonder if you might be here in order to promote these. If that is so, please be aware that promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not interested in what any company or person wants to say about themselves, or what their friends, employees, or agents say about them: it is only interested in what people unconnected with a company or a person have published about them. I don't know whether you have a connection with HCG or Ajaikumar, but if you do, you should also be aware that you are strongly discouraged from editing any article about them because of your conflict of interest.

Another suggestion I would make is that you get a lot of experience improving existing articles in Wikipedia before trying to create new ones. --ColinFine (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Colin

Thanks for your valuable input, yes i do agree that i have done the mistake of jumping into creating articles rather than reading how to do it. Will look in to this and try to improve. Yes I am associated with HCG but promoting the company was not my idea, the company is a renowned face of cancer care in India and Africa, and we are going IPO, being listed in the encyclopedia was all I wanted. In future once it is listed in the stock market i wanted to include a plugin where companies live stock information will be visible on the wiki page. Believe me I never wanted to promote the company through this, all i wanted to do is a listing and later on anyone can update the article looking at the authenticity.

Thanks a ton, really appreciate your prompt response. I will work on the inputs given by you.

Thanks ArifArifbasheer (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Can't edit a specific page

Hello, why I can't edit this page? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 13 Berti118 (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it against guidelines or anything esle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berti118 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Berti118, I don't know, but the page you tried to edit may have been semiprotected. If it was, no IP or new user can edit it. You will be able to edit semiprotected pages when you have 4 days and 10 edits. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 18:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

And they now do have 10 edits, and already had 4 days. However, why do you want to edit an AFD log? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't believe that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 13 is semi-protected. I wonder whether the OP was confused by the fact that most of the text seen on the page isn't directly visible in the wikisource, as the content is provided by transclusion of the deparate AFD pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

White Arabian Filly Robert McClenon David Biddulph, thank you for your help! David Biddulph is right, I need to go to the deparate AFD pages here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AfD_debates. Thank you again!Berti118 (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I meant "separate", of course. In the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 13 page, if you click on the edit link alongside the heading of the relevant section, it will take you to the relevant specific AFD page. It is only if you hit the edit tab at the top of the page that you get the confusion of just seeing the list of pages transcluded. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Newspaper obituary - licensing question

I want to upload a scan of an obituary from The Times Newspaper from 1960 in my reference section. I cannot find it online so cannot just include a link. Are there any copyright issues? Which of the dropdown licensing options on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload should i select? Thank you FJH1974 20:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloraHarvey (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You can cite the article as a reference without it being available online. Use the {{cite news}} template and fill in the relevant details including date. To upload a scan would be a WP:copyright violation and therefore illegal. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

{{ec} Hello FloraHarvey, and welcome to the Teahouse. You should not upload this. You should simply provide the date and page number along with the item title in the citation, and of course that it was in the NY Times. Anyone with access to a major library would be able to look up the NY Times from 1960 to verify the reference source. People with NYT Digital subscriptions may be able to find and link to an online version, if the Times has digitized or scanned that page. But citations do NOT need to be online, nor do they need to be available free of charge. As long as a motivated reader could, possibly with help, verify the information the cite is sufficient. DES ^(talk) 21:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If this question relates to Draft:Sir Frank Fox, OBE, then I suspect that the obituary FloraHarvey refers to is from The Times, not The New York Times. Still, much of the above applies to that newspaper too. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Note, DES, that the OP didn't say "NY Times"; she said "The Times". --David Biddulph (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Quite correct, that was my error, David Biddulph

Thank you all for your advice.

You are correct that the question does relate to. Draft:Sir Frank Fox, OBE, I'm still having problems in working out how to add a reference to the obituary in The Times (UK) from 9 March 1960. This is not available on line anywhere. When my draft was decline i was asked that references "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources." I thought that the scan of the Obit would be a good addition. As I cannot include that what others might you suggest. Also, I have tried to make the tone more formal and less 'peacocky' but if you have any other suggestions please let me know. With many thanks from a wiki-first-timer! FJH1974 21:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloraHarvey (talk • contribs)

FloraHarvey, please re-read David Biddulph's comment above. Sources don't have to be available online. You can cite a newspaper article without having to upload a scan of it. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry is exactly correct, FloraHarvey. You would insert something like the following:

<ref>{{cite news |title=Sir Frank Fox (or whatever the actual obit title is) |date=9 March 1960 |work=[[The Times]] |location=London |page= (page number here)}}</ref> You could also include a quote= parameter to supply a short relevant quote from the obit if that seems possibly useful. Insert tjhis right after the fact supported by the statement. See Referencing for Beginners for more details. DES ^(talk) 21:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Dead link

Whenever I try to follow this link, it says "The requested URL was not found on this server." Is anyone else having this problem or is it just me? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It's the same for me, Dunkleosteus77. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Dunkleosteus77, and welcome to the Teahouse. The link is dead for me also. Was it used in an article as a citation? if so, you can add {{dead link}} to indicate this. DES ^(talk) 23:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: I have found and fixed the link [2] by changing lower case l (as in long) to upper case I (as in India).[3] The context showed the book title so I searched Google Books for it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunkleosteus77 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 17 March 2016‎ (UTC)

Draft on a person to submit, need review by Teahouse Host

New to Wikipedia, I've a draft on a person whom I feel should have an entry in Wikipedia. I'd love for the Teahouse Host Missionedit to help me. The draft is in my sandbox and the title is Dr. Gene A. Getz. Please, instead of deleting, tell me what I need to change. Thank you! JLMeeker 19:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLMeeker (talk • contribs)

Hello JLMeeker and welcome to the Teahouse. Robert McClenon did a formal review and declined your submission for the moment. i did an additional informal review and left you several comments and suggestions. i also made an edit as an example of formatting the ISBN number in book listings. I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 23:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to comment briefly on your statement: "Please, instead of deleting, tell me what I need to change." The best way to accomplish that, and you did it, is to create a draft article and submit it to AFC. Articles in AFC are only rarely deleted; they are usually declined, that is, sent back with comments for rework. Creating new articles in article space is likely to result in them being deleted, unless you are an experienced editor who knows what is required. Draft articles are only deleted rarely, for copyright violation, for being blatant advertising, and for a few other reasons that can't be improved on. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Interpreting MOS:LEAD

I can't tell if it's preferred or discouraged for the first sentence of the lead to be a circular definition because it seems really common. I've seen other editors make comments like, "you're not supposed to define terms in the lead." But I've never been able to find that in MOS:LEAD or any other policy/guideline. Take Sensory-motor coupling for example. The the first sentence says, "Sensory-motor coupling is the coupling or integration of the sensory system and motor system.” Say you’re still confused so you click on the WikiLink for the Sensory system article. Well, the first sentence of the lead there also contains a circular definition: “The sensory nervous system is a part of the nervous system responsible for processing sensory information.”

I'd want to change the first sentence of Sensory-motor coupling to, “Sensory-motor coupling is the integration of the part of the nervous system that perceives sight, sound, touch, taste, smell and balance (the sensory system) and the part that controls movement (the motor system).” Would that be ill-advised? It always bugs me when I come across stuff like that. I’m tempted to simplify them, especially when the linked article is low quality in general, but like I said, I’m not sure if circular definitions with WikiLinks are actually the generally preferred style. PermStrump(talk) 17:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't really feel strongly about the Sensory motor article. This is really more of a general question that has been in the back of my mind and I was just reading that article, so it was the first one that came to mind. I'm asking here because it's a pretty inactive article and I didn't think anyone would respond if I posted on the talkpage. PermStrump(talk) 17:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to thank you for giving a specific example of what you are asking about. All to often, someone here asks a question that is definitely about a specific article, moreover one he does feel strongly about; but fails to reveal which article, leaving the hosts here to to some detective work before they can answer.

Now, I don't see either of the definitions above as circular. "Sensory-motor coupling" is defined in terms of "sensory system" and "motor system", both being links to other articles. Then "sensory system" is defined in terms of two more terms, which are also links to other articles. (if they led back to the original article, that would be circular). I think this is all is it should be. It might be annoying in a book, where you would have to look things up to understand the sentences; but in Wikipedia, it's so easy to click on a term you don't understand. I prefer it the way it is rather than the long sentence you propose. Maproom (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Maproom, thanks for the reply! I didn't mean circular definition like a circular reference, I meant it like when we were in elementary school taking a vocab test and the teacher wouldn't let you use part of the word in its definition. I guess it's been drilled into my head since school, so it drives me nuts when I see it. It should be easy on the computer to click/hover on a link, but I swear half of the time the linked article has a worse lead than the one that led me there. This is how it went earlier today... I looked up Sensorimotor psychotherapy b/c I'd just heard of it for the first time. That article consists of 3 sentences (total) and describes sensorimotor psychotherapy as "somatic psychotherapy," which redirects to "body psychotherapy." I thought I knew what sensorimotor, somatic, body and psychotherapy meant up until that point, but I'm a mental health therapist and I couldn't make sense of what those techniques might be based on their names, so I second-guessed myself. I looked up sensorimotor and ended up on the sensory-motor coupling article, which was no help, so I went to the linked article on sensory systems, which took the whole first paragraph to circuitously answer the question in a way that made it way more complex than it needed to be. Then I went to the linked article for plain old sensory... no help. I just wanted a one sentence explanation of sensorimotor to confirm that I knew what it meant all along, for crying out loud! :P PermStrump(talk) 00:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Permstrump: ok, I see now what you meant. It might save readers the trouble of following links if the Sensorimotor psychotherapy article explained directly that it's a form of alternative medicine. I'll add that. Maproom (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing in a World War II article

Hello - I have been working on a draft on Matt Konop, a WWII veteran who led the force that liberated the town his grandparents had come from when immigrating to America. Much has been sourced in the article, but we still hear that we need to have the lead sourced. The story has been documented in several daily newspaper accounts about his typewritten manuscript, as well as using sources like WWII texts, Czech books, etc. There's a plaque erected in the town celebrating the event. Can I get help in very specific ways for how to get this story accepted? Thank you! TSFisher (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, TSFisher, and welcome to the Teahouse. The lead section should summarize the article as a whole. Statements that are sourced in the body need not be sourced again in the lead. Statements in the lead that are not sourced anywhere should be sourced as well as possible, and usually should be included in the body of the article. When a source can be found online, it is helpful to provide a link to it, but off-line sources are perfectly acceptable. When a source is not online, it can be helpful to supply a relevant quote from the source so readers can more easily see what supporting language there is in the source. If you use citation templates such as {{cite book}} and {{cite news}}, a quote= parameter can be used for this purpose. The plaque can itself be cited (publicly displays monuments are considers to have been published), and an image of it could be included if you or some other person takes a photo and is willing to release it freely. Phrases such as "haring the extraordinary string of coincidences in Konop’s war time service, and the astonishment the people of Czechoslovakia felt, and still feel..." are opinion and evaluation, and should be explicitly attributed to a source, not given in Wikipedia's voice or stated as fact. Something like 'Sharing what <Reviewer X> called "an extraordinary string of coincidences" and...'. If no independent source called it an "extraordinary string of coincidences" then neither should the draft. The same applies to "astonishment" and other similar evaluations -- it should be sourced or removed, and if sourced, explicitly attributed to the source in the prose. DES ^(talk) 03:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, TSFisher. I note that you refer to the draft as a "story", but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia made up of articles, not stories. Perhaps that was just an unfortunate choice of word, but do keep in mind that the aim here is to write neutral encyclopedia articles, not compelling narratives. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Religious Bias

Hi, I am noticing that of course the pages on Islam are dominated by muslims who wish to present their faith in a more receptive light rather than the actual historical facts surrounding the Prophet. My changes are being reverted, and I'm unsure of whether it's because of the content or because of this issue. If you want to gather honey, don't kick over the beehive - Dale Carnegie 21:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

CriticalRationalThinking, you don't seem to be signing your comments properly. Are you using four tides (~~~~) or manually typing out "Dale Carnegie" and the time and date? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

As to the topic of your question, this change that you made was not reverted because a Muslim wanted to present their faith in a more receptive light, but because it was contested and unsourced. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

do I need to sign everything? Even the summary of the edits? Also, see how on this timeline of Muhammad, my additional material was removed by a user, even though it is not contested by anyone that the Treaty of Hudaybiyah was broken. It just makes Muhammad look bad. If you want to gather honey, don't kick over the beehive - Dale Carnegie 21:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

No, just comments on discussion pages such as this, CriticalRationalThinking. Your signature needs to include a link to your user page, which is why I raise the issue. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Larry! I just changed it so hopefully it'll work. Also, as for the contested and unsourced, I do not understand, because this is not controversial. This is what an Islamist believes. Why don't others have to cite their sources? Why do I need to go to a dictionary in order to establish something that isn't contested? --If you want to gather honey, don't kick over the beehive - Dale Carnegie (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Does Islamism necessarily or usually involve the wish to apply sharia law to all people? I'm not an expert, but it strikes me that many Islamists only want to apply it within the Muslim world. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Larry, thanks again for your help! Yes, Islamism is a specific word which refers to people who wish to reorder the government and society in which they live into accordance with Islamic law. Don't worry, it's a very confusing term because most muslims are NOT Islamists =) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Islamism --If you want to gather honey, don't kick over the beehive - Dale Carnegie (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what the term means, thanks, CriticalRationalThinking. The essential point is that you are asserting that Islamists want to impose sharia law on everyone, without citing a source. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Larry, I must have answered your question too broadly then, and for that you have my apologies. I didn't know that you had such a broad breadth of knowledge and I will keep this in mind in the future. --If you want to gather honey, don't kick over the beehive - Dale Carnegie (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

CriticalRationalThinkinglease, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Some of your edits were not uncontroversial and were your opinion which is considered original research and is not allowed. Also, your signature is still confusing as it consists of a quote and editors can not see what your username is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. Do not use as a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists. "Where possible, be specific and use the name of militant affiliations: al-Qaida-linked, Hezbollah, Taliban, etc. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi."The Associated Press --If you want to gather honey, don't kick over the beehive - Dale Carnegie (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The Teahouse is not a page to discuss content disputes. Please take this discussion to the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Liz and Larry, could you help me see which edits were 'my opinion'? As I understand it, we do not have a duty to avoid controversial issues. And we do indeed have a duty to present the facts, whether they're controversial or not. I also thought that I don't necessarily need to cite these facts when they are so accepted by mainstream scientific consensus. I understand this page isn't for content disputes. --If you want to gather honey, don't kick over the beehive - Dale Carnegie (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This one was, as I've already stated. The standard for inclusion isn't that something is a fact, but that it's verifiable. That means that you need to provide reliable sources for your additions, especially if they are likely to be challenged. It's got nothing to do with avoiding controversial issues, by the way. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

So then I may challenge things that are unsourced and are controversial? Where are the citations for that? Are secularists and religionists being held to the same standard? Or we imposing an undue burden on secularists simply because their opinion might be challenged? CriticalRationalThinking Ryan [If you want to gather honey, don't kick over the beehive. Dale Carnegie] (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are free to challenge things that are unsourced or insufficiently sourced. I have no firm evidence on whether we are holding secularists and religionists to the same standards, but my experience tells me that, on the whole, Wikipedia editors are a fairly secular lot, so I would be surprised if there was an anti-secular bias overall. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Again I'd like to take the time to thank you Larry and Liz for bearing with me here. I've reviewed the verifiability page. Could you check the page on Islamism and tell me whether the change I've made is okay? I've added a source (2). Thanks! CriticalRationalThinking Ryan [If you want to gather honey, don't kick over the beehive. Dale Carnegie] (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Presuming that you are referring to this edit, CriticalRationalThinking, I would suggest using a better source than a dictionary. Peer-reviewed academic research is usually the gold standard, but there might be other options here. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but when most of the article doesn't contain any citations, why is it that administrator JarrahTree takes issue with the fact that the edits are controversial? It seems that if the edits make Islam look good, they're not controversial and thus don't need citations. If, on the other hand, we dare to write the facts and cite them, that we need even more citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CriticalRationalThinking (talk • contribs) 22:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right, CriticalRationalThinking. Many Wikipedia articles are poorly sourced. The solution is not to use that as an excuse to add more unsourced material, but to source or challenge what is there already and to make sure that any further additions are sourced. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

CriticalRationalThinking, it is also important to realize that the lead is intended for summarizing the content of the article. If you are adding material that others are challenging, it is better to find an appropriate place in the body of the article and try to add material there - with appropriate sources, of course. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Well as a matter of persuasion I definitely agree. However I'm just as concerned as you are about the fact that we are having to treat information differently if it is controversial, versus if it is not. Because of course, we wouldn't want to allow Wikipedia to become a place where if it's popular, it exists, and if it's not, then it doesn't. CriticalRationalThinking Ryan [If you want to gather honey, don't kick over the beehive. Dale Carnegie] (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not controversial material, per se, but "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged", that needs an inline citation, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability, and you have the ability to challenge material, CriticalRationalThinking. Personally, I try to hold myself to a higher standard by providing reliable sources for all of the material I add, whether I think it is likely to be challenged or not. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You are making very good points my friend! CriticalRationalThinking Ryan [Want honey? Don't kick over the beehive]-Carnegie] (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

How to replace IP address in edit page with username?

Now that I have managed to create a user name how do I update a previous edit to reflect my new identity? Ed. Harris (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, EdwinJLHarris: welcome to the community of editors with accounts, and to the Teahouse. If you are talking about somehow reallocating edits already made, so that they appear differently in the history, I'm afraid that's not possible. You could list on your User page the articles you have already worked on, but there's no way to reattribute the edits. --ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I was hoping to create a link between the edits I made (to the page on Worldpay) and my user so that I can be notified of any updates and, if necessary, give justification for the changes. Ed. Harris (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

To be notified of changes, add the article to your watchlist, EdwinJLHarris. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Shall do, thanks for the help. Ed. Harris (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You can also add the talk page of the IP address to your watchlist if you want to discover attempts to contact you. This is possible even if the talk page has not been created. Note that many users wish to keep their IP address private because it may be used to get information about their location and maybe their identity. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@EdwinJLHarris: If it worries you that your IP address can be found in the former edit then see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. It can be hidden but not replaced by a username. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter. Thanks for the info but I'm more worried that people would not be able to contact me that that they might find my approximate location. Many of the people looking at that page are likely to know me anyway :-) Ed. Harris (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Uploading Pictures?

How to upload picture in English Wikipedia?. DSLR EOS (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, DSLR EOS. A better place to upload them to is Wikimedia Commons, from where they can be used on all Wikipedia projects. See Commons:First steps/Uploading files on how to do this. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I know that, I am asking how to upload images to English Wikipedia. I seen some images with different license which can't be used in Commons (e.g here). DSLR EOS (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Sorry, DSLR EOS, I presumed (because of your username, I think) that you wanted to upload photos that you'd taken. The page you're looking for is Special:Upload or Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. See also Wikipedia:Uploading images. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Should I try again or is this person really not notable enough for inclusion?

Hi, I've tried to create a article about one of my (admittedly favorite) writers and it was declined, with the suggestion that I use references that are not related to the person himself. Well, does this mean I shouldn't cite articles or books he's written and should rely on reviews etc? Or maybe he's just not that notable I get that. But there seem to be a lot of less well known and a lot less neutral articles on wikipedia. I'm not complaining, just honestly want to do the right thing. Ucaspencer (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Most of your references were just mentions or local publicity. Has your favourite author been reviewed in the national press? Try to find some better references in WP:reliable sources, and note that Wikipedia rules are particularly strict for WP:Biographies of living persons. If you can't find better references, then perhaps your author is not yet notable in the strict Wikipedia sense. If there are some poorly referenced and badly written articles still remaining from the days when the rules were not as strict, then those articles should be either improved or deleted. Dbfirs 17:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, if you ask us a question about an article that you submitted or contributed to, it would make our job easier if you provided a link to the article, Draft: Philip Martin, so that we don't have to browse your editor history. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)