Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 595

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 590

←

Archive 593

→

Music Artist Wikipeida

I Have a music artist that I work with, and I want to create a Wikipedia page for him to build upon as we grow. Would there be any issues with starting one?

Zen173.167.226.147 (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi 173.167.236.147/Zen. Only those subjects which have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources are considered to be Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article as explained in Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Please also take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles for reference. If you feel the artist you want to write about satisfies the criteria in those guidelines, then it may be possible for an article to be written about him. However, if you are connected to this person in a professional or personal way, then you probably should also take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide so as to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's position on conflict-of-interest editing. If you are connected to this person and if you are able to establish that this person is notable per relevant Wikipedia guidelines, then you might be better off asking someone else to write the article by posting a request at Wikipedia:requested articles or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Create autobiography...........

Hi, I am Anjum Parvez and I want to create my autobiography. What should I do?........... AnjumParvez (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You can write you own biography but it should be informative and unbiased, and you have to give references links to justify your statement if you fail to produce such references then your page will be deleted.

~~Thanks Mate~~

~~PeaceAman rana420 (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)~~

AnjumParvez, please don't take the above at face value. While there is no rule actually forbidding the creation of autobiographies on Wikipedia, it is very strongly discouraged, because it is almost certain that you will be unable to produce an article that is sufficiently neutral when writing about yourself. Please see WP:AUTOBIO for more on this subject. As a rule, Wikipedia has almost no interest in what a subject has to say about themselves, rather collecting and summarizing what others have said about the subject. Thus, if you are actually notable in the Wikipedia sense, someone else will be writing about you in due time. - Aman rana420, please don't give misleading advice to new editors.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Payment

Do you get paid here?203.147.106.50 (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia editors are unpaid volunteers. Paid editing is discouraged and must be declared. Dbfirs 10:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback on new local NGO page - structure

Hi,

I am new to Wikipedia as an editor.

1. Could you let me know, if the structure I created for this local NGO is too long / can be understood easily? 2. Could an admin please enable Macros for me, so I can add a table of content?

Thanks :-) An

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SaveCambodiasWildlife/sandbox SaveCambodiasWildlife (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi SaveCambodiasWildlife. I'm not sure what you mean by enable Macros. I don't believe an administrator needs to do anything for you to add a table to your sandbox. Just follow the instructions in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables and Help:Table for details on how to properly add and format tables.

As for the outline of your draft, maybe take a look at WP:YFA and WP:LAYOUT for specific details. You're also going to need to provide citations to independent reliable sources so that the article content can be verified and show how the organization satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

Finally, since you're writing a draft about an NGO called "Save Cambodia's Wildlife", you probably should change your username. Wikipedia's username policy does not permit usernames "that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product" as explained in WP:ORGNAME. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for reference as well if you are connected to the SCW in anyway. COI editing is not something expressly prohibited by Wikipedia, but it is something highly discourage because it can held to more serious problems and can also be seen as suspicious by other editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

SaveCambodiasWildlife: a table of contents will appear automatically, once there are enough correctly-formatted section headers. Maproom (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

THANK YOU SO MUCH @ ALL for your valuable feedback. I know you have guidelines for everything, but it's easy to get lost ;)AnRoCa (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome AnRoCa, but all credit goes to Maproom. I completely misunderstood your question. Anyway, please see WP:TOC for more information on "Table of contents". -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

about article

Can you write me an article ?Isbat raihan (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

We have WP:Requested articles where you can request articles, but there is no guarantee that anyone will write the article that you request. What article did you have in mind? Dbfirs 11:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Any advice on what to add to an organisations wikipedia page?

Hi, I have made a draft page on an organisation but it has been rejected twice. In both my reviews I got that the subjects references don't show notability and in my last review, I was told that the Wikipedia reads like an advertised business profile. I have added awards that the company has won from official sources but listing awards is definitely advertising so I will remove them but now I'm left with just a brief profile. I'm pretty confused what to add to the Wikipedia that doesn't look like a form of advertisement. Any advice on what is usually found on an organisations Wikipedia page? Here is what I currently made so any advice at all would be appreciated.

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

Thank you for your help. UmarShah (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse UmarShah I'm afraid that, like many others, you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is about. It is an encyclopaedia, which summarises what independent sources have published about subjects. Creating an article is one of the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia, creating one when you have a conflict of interest is doubly difficult, creating one without reliable sources is just impossible I'm afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I see, thank you for your help. UmarShah (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Need Help Creating a Page

I am creating a page but i am not able to add image on the infobox can anyone help me with that, i think i am not allowed to perform that action, will anyone upload the picture once my page will go live. I cant do it from sideAman rana420 (talk) 08:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

People are not interested in me .. hehe Aman rana420 (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a social media site, but if you are interested in creating an article for Wikipedia, then we will be happy to advise and help. You have not created an article here yet under your current identity. If you put the text of your proposed article in your sandbox, or Your article name or in WP:Draft space then we can let you know how to improve it. You need to read WP:Notability and Help:Referencing for beginners before you start. Images must be your own, or must satisfy the strict Wikipedia conditions on copyright. Dbfirs 12:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply its in my sandbox its ready to go live but i am not able to insert photo in the infobox so what should i do.. Aman rana420 (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see that you put your article straight into article space where it has been nominated for deletion. If you had placed it in your sandbox, we would have had more time to advise you. Your article is a biography and Wikipedia rules are particularly strict about these. It is unencyclopaedic to use such phrases as "Well, all the good things come to an end for a greater journey to begin" and "with an admirable position of ...". The whole article is written in a promotional tone that will not be accepted here. In addition, you need to back up every statement that you make with WP:Reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Dbfirs 13:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

When does removing false information becomes COI

Hi

Thank you for the invite to tea house.

My question is regarding COI (Confict of interest)

If I am removing false information adding, updating factual work achievements information on my own Wikipedia page how does it go onto COI?

I have read the COI page which presumes that generally people writing with internal or external connection about the subject becomes COI

Then how is one suppose to update and correct false information about themselves on ones own wikipedia page?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vital Signs (talk • contribs) 19:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If there is false information and it is unreferenced, then you are welcome to remove it yourself. In all other cases, it is better to put forward your suggestion for improvement on the article's talk page, with references, then someone else will make the change. Mention your request here if you think no-one is watching the talk page. Dbfirs 20:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You were given advice on your talk page. Please read that, and the links provided. By the way, normally, new topics at the teahouse go at the top of the page, but this is likely to change in the near future so that this page is like all the others on Wikipedia, so I haven't moved this question to the top. Dbfirs 20:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions on WikiEdu Assignment

I am a student enrolled in the WikiEdu program and have written a new article titled "Latin American Economy". I have made many changes based on feedback I have received. Wanted to receive further feedback to see if the article is good. I especially wanted feedback on the following topics: - Does my lead section provide a clear summary? - Is this article clear to a non expert? - Is the article free of any persuasive language? - Is my formatting consistent with Wikipedia? - Are my claims cited properly?

And of course, I welcome any general feedback as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danicroi (talk • contribs) 00:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Danicroi. I have moved your post to the top of the page as it has not yet received any responses. This may be because you are requesting feedback on an article rather than asking a question about editing, which is what the Teahouse is really for. A better place to ask for feedback might be on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics or Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America. You could also request a review via Wikipedia:Peer review. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Danicroi. I already posted something about the article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latin America and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics the other day, so there's no need for you to do that, but Wikipedia:Peer review might be a good idea. Also, I added some comments to the article's talk page myself a few days ago as well. For reference, your previous Teahouse question about this has been archived at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 593#Latin American Economies New Article. There were some comments there you might not have seen. Finally, please try to remember to sign your talk page posts per WP:TILDE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

How does one add an Image from another site to a Infobox?

Hi all.

I'm working on the Space Hulk (2013 video game) page and I'm having a hard time with the infobox.

I'm attempting to upload a pic from howlongtobeat.com of the cover art, but I'm unable to link or upload the image.

I'm therefore looking for help in uploading the image to the infobox, so I can continue work on the page.

Any help is appreciated.

--Cypher7850 (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome, @Cypher7850:, it's always good to see someone who wants to make Wikipedia better. Unfortunately the quick answer to your question is, you can't. Technical problems are the easy part; the hard part is WP:Copyright. Cover art almost always has an owner (usually the game publisher) and you need a very broad permission from the owner, and they don't grant that permission because it costs them money. There are some complex, difficult ways that might work; they are partly covered in Wikipedia:Non-free content but frankly you're probably better off putting your time into easier things. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The use of a low-resolution image in the Space Hulk (1993 video game) article suggests that it is possible to do the same for Space Hulk (2013 video game). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This can be done under "Fair Use" provisions. Even though this image is not Free, as described above, there are provisions to use such "non-free" images in situations like this. The process is a bit complex, but it works - see the documentation at Wikipedia:Non-free content. In summary:

Image resolution should be less than 100,000 pixels (e.g. images with a 4:3 aspect ratio at 320 × 240 pixels, or common cover art at 250 × 400 pixels).
Upload it to Wikipedia, NOT to Wikimedia Commons (as you would do for most images) - use the "Upload File" link under Tools on the left hand side of the screen.
Fill in the non-free use justification, explaining that this is a low-resolution image of cover artwork that will be used only once as the principal visual identification for the subject of the article. --Gronk Oz (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Corporate bios

Thanks for the invite. Obviously I am new. If the corporation is deemed notable and COI documented by the employee/author, could/would it still be reviewed? Contributor1972 (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Contributor1972. Our terms of use require disclosure of paid editing, and I think that it is fair to say that many experienced editors are quite unfriendly to paid editors, who often create very bad promotional content. That being said, one of the reasons that the Articles for Creation process was started a few years ago was to allow editors with a disclosed conflict of interest to write article drafts for review. If a fully acceptable draft is submitted, it should be reviewed by an uninvolved experienced editor and added to the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

To be fair it is undisclosed paid editing most people have a problem with. I have yet to see a single instance where a declared paid editor got in trouble when a non-paid one would have gone undisturbed. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that there are many quite vocal editors who object to all paid editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a significant difference between objecting to paid editing and harrassing a paid editor, the latter is not allowed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328, I think I am ready for another lesson in NPOV. I've cited as best as I can (I probably should review Multi citation though to clean it up). Advise any sources not deemed trustworthy or with a PR spin as it ws reviewed and tagged for that. Please keep in mind (COI established), tag added to draft talk page of same name. : User:Contributor1972/sandbox/Draft:High_Performance_Alloys,_Inc. Contributor1972 (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Which of your independent sources provide significant coverage of this company as a business, Contributor1972? Many of your assertions are presented without references. Please provide references or remove the assertions. The history of the company is presented in a choppy style that seems to avoid complete sentences. Our Manual of Style calls for clear prose in complete sentences organized into traditional paragraphs with a narrative flow. We do not present content in bullet points like a PowerPoint presentation. The exceptions are structured lists, graphs, infoboxes and so on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328, Thanks for looking it over again. I take it that the NPOV issues are improved. Issue of Notability: TV Coverage by National Geographic for show (they couldn't film at Haynes, but still needed a subject matter expert). Maybe you haven't seen the full episode. They hang a forklift from a crane by a small rod. SME should count, you can tweet Zane directly if needed. I couldn't cite if it is PR.

Making alloys that go in space and on other planets NASA/ Marshall Space Flight Center / JPL . I know documentation on the federal contract work is possible to some extent. Does it make it notable is the question? For the most part the company is kept secret; working inside black boxes commercially.
There are many citations from expert studies, scholars and books - these are a basis that is easy to cite and there are several used throughout. Before the age of websites dedicated solely to materials with ads, the company was one of few free sources of information on these alloys - on the internet. Being cited as a source should count for something, but understandably not heavily.
Without being promotional in nature, it comes down to this - would SpaceX be flying heavy load rockets today without their help? Manned flight for NASA has restrictions that they hadn't qualified for already. They are using a booster design already qualified for NASA use, whose use was continued by the company. Why is SpaceX notable, because they actually fly into space? Maybe it has to be more than 2+2=4, but this is a large contribution to the US space community. Achieving things that people say are impossible is everyday in aerospace!
Philanthropy is also hard to cite. Finding references for the support of Eastern Howard Performing Arts Society is almost impossible without showing an AD or PR copy. Supporting local baseball teams. Donations to non-profits like WE CARE. The total donation amount over the last 20 years is significant, but untold here - for lack of citations.
I'll reformat the milestones into paragraphs and remove extraneous in-citable details to see how it looks - but is there even a semblance of notability? Contributor1972 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328, I've completed the change of bullets to paragraphs. Commented out large sections of undocumented/cited information. Contributor¹⁹⁷² Discuss with me

How to move to launching a page?

Hi I have drafted a page -"The Island of Doctor Moron - The Film". The film is significant as it is the first and only film of its type to have been produced in Australia to date. It has toured across four states to date. How do we get the page launched? There is also a page contributed by someone else on the live show - The Island of Doctor Moron. It has been up for a couple of years. Katmanblue (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Katmanblue If the draft you're referring to is Draft:THE ISLAND OF DOCTOR MORON - THE FILM, then I'm afraid that (at least in my opinion) it still needs quite a lot of work before it7s ready for the article namespace. Assuming that the film meets the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (films), it will need some major reformatting to be brought up Wikipedia's manual of style standards. Maybe you should take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:Writing better articles and Help:Referencing for beginners for some general tips on formatting articles. You might also want to look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film for some more tips specific to writing articles about movies. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Katmanblue, I've left feedback on the formatting issues at the top of your page. Fix those first, then get back to us. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Protection

How do I mark an article for Protection/ How do i protect an article (I am autoconfirmed) I Am Chaos (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC) I Am Chaos (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@I Am Chaos: Only administrators may protect an article. If you think an article needs protection, you may make the request at WP:RFPP. 19:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thanks for th info! I Am Chaos (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Consolidating about ten or a dozen quite small articles

Yesterday, in attempting to provide links to and from an article about a 16th-c Welsh poet I noticed that there are a few similar items, all in the same unhealthy state. Nothing points to them, they don't link to anything else; they have just a single reference. Would someone point me toward rules for removing all of these Welsh-language poets to a single page, with an appropriate title, if indeed that would be a reasonable thing to do? SewerCat (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi SewerCat and welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:Merging for all the details. Since you will be reusing other editors' work, it is important to follow the steps that keep the history of the pages. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: Thank you! SewerCat (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@SewerCat: People generally have their own articles except some cases with a very close association like the same family or organization, or working closely together. 16th century Welsh poets is not something we would normally merge just because the articles are small stubs, except if they are mainly known for coauthoring a poetry collection or something like that. If they are only known for being mentioned in a single work then they might be listed in an article about that work. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Yes, especially having read the article about merging, I would agree with you. The articles failed to meet my eccentric 'tidiness' criterion. ;) SewerCat (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Need of help for history article

Can someone help me with my history article [1] ? --Utigur (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Utigur: it reads more like a research paper than an encyclopedia article. Maproom (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Is that bad? --Utigur (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

In general, no. But within Wikipedia, yes, see Wikipedia:No original research. Maproom (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

A more specific, and more easily addressed, criticism: it's odd to write "The recurve bow, the weapon that gave the Huns military advantage over the Romans". You've already linked to "Huns" and to "Romans", there's no need to repeat the link. Anyway, most readers are likely to know what those two terms mean. It would have been more useful to link to recurve bow. Maproom (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Considering the topic, it is not possible to reach any satisfactory conclusions without some research. I would say that it is unconventional reading of the sources. So, there is no way WP to publish an article as this?--Utigur (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's not, Utigur. What Wikipedia publishes is neutral, encyclopedic articles that summarise what secondary sources say about a topic, not essays that advance arguments. Something like this is more suited to a magazine or journal than Wikipedia: "We will try to peer into the mysteries that hang over the Steppes to see if we can discover who were these Huns and Bulgars whose final incoming changed so lastingly and profoundly the history of Europe. At the end of this article we will see that both the Gothic legend and the ingenious hypotheses of Deguignes are actually true. The Huns and their awful ancestry have always been the boast of every bellicose nation; Attila is proudly called cousin, if not grandfather by them all; of all these claims, it seems that the Bulgars' is best justified; the blood of the Scourge of God flows now in the valley of the Balkans, diluted by time and pastoral Slavs". Cordless Larry (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't coined this statement myself - it is from the cited books.--Utigur (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe so, but we don't express opinions or give interpretations in Wikipedia's voice, as if they were facts. This raises another issue: is the wording copied directly from the source? If it is, then this might constitute plagiarism and a copyright violation. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I can always rearrange the wording, it not a big problem. But I think that may be you are more concern about petty issues rather than to understand who were the Huns. Don't you have any curiosity? --Utigur (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted, unsigned person. I have deleted ~~most~~ all of the sandbox as a direct copy from http://hunnobulgars.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/origin-huns-bulgarians.html. Maproom (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Signature fixed! Utigur, this isn't a "petty" issue - it's about respecting copyright and the very definition of an encyclopedia. If I want to understand about the Huns, I will read the article Huns. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

yep - this blog is mine. --Utigur (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if the blog is yours, it attributes its content, I believe correctly, to a work by Steven Runciman, published in 1930 and therefore still restricted by copyright law. Maproom (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

well, I will leave to read articles as Huns and Bulgars - they are nothing more than piles of prejudice. Call me when you understand the origin of Huns and Bulgars from these articles. --Utigur (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

If you have suggestions for how to improve those articles, based on reliable sources, please do make them on the articles' talk pages, Utigur. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I will think about this. First, I don't want to argue with stubborn editors who wrote these articles. Second, may be it is not in my best interest to give this information to WP for free. I can make money from my blog submitting it to Google. If this information is on Wikipedia I will have an issue with Google.--Utigur (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Finally done. Need review and to post in talk, apparently.

I have just added 3 photos. Easier than I thought, using Wikimedia Commons.

I have added two subsections at the bottom to title the final two paragraphs in the current entry that I am not changing. They are empty of content at the moment but should be interlaced with the current text.

What should my next step be? Silver Water (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Silver Water. When you are asking for comments on a page, it is always helpful to provide a link to that page. In this case, the page is User:Silver Water/sandbox. You propose to add content to Eugene, Oregon. Be sure that you have provided useful wikilinks to informative articles, such as Grand Ronde Community. You mention an author named Robert Boyd. We have at least 26 biographies of people with that common name. You should either link to the proper person if there is a biography of him, or describe him in a way that disambiguates him from the others, such as "professor at XYZ University". In my opinion, you are providing too much detail about the various sub-tribal ethnic groups of the original Native American residents of the Eugene area. A long list of ethnic group names without describing the differences and similarities between these groups does not seem useful to me in an article about a city. I would assume that these native peoples lived throughout the area, both inside and outside the modern city limits. Accordingly, this level of detail seems more appropriate to the article about the Native American people of the Eugene area, Kalapuya. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, @Cullen:. This is very helpful feedback. However, I can't make the changes you suggest, though I am ready to, because I can't find the visual editor again. I only seem to have "edit source" as a choice. Can you help? You didn't find any other links I missed?Silver Water (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen: Found the visual editor under Sandbox tutorial. I'm all set. Will ask for another review by using the button at the top of the sandbox page. Thank you for your help.Silver Water (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Can I delete my own edit?

Do I just use "undo" for this, or is there a better way? I changed something in an article due to a reference, but it turns out that at least two of ITS sources contradict the author's claim. RM2KX (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the undo button will work for this. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You cannot remove the edit from the page history if that's what you had in mind. Administrators can hide edits but don't do it for this reason. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both! I revised it again, with additional details, so I didn't have to "undo" after all. RM2KX (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Scientists - Physicists - correction of a formula that shows end of fossil age

~~A new Copernicus was burned at the stake here~~ WP:NOR

I have rewritten the wind power formula that is the bible of wind science. There is no chance that I am incorrect. Wikipedia uses the old wind power formula everywhere. If scientists from Wikipedia support this proven new formula, it shows the end of the fossil fuel age and no need for nuclear power. I want to email my science that is relatively light lifting to any scientists. I do not have a forum for pier review since I am not credentialed. To the first 5 scientists that will look at this and simply email me that you feel I wasted your time by nonsense science and can point to any error of significance to the conclusions, I will mail you a $100 gift certificate at your favorite restaurant, so you can eat on me and have a laugh on me. From a wind turbine, I can produce 1000% to 5,000% more electricity than a current wind turbine in the same wind path. I know it sounds ridiculous and you will be free to stop reading after a minute or two and based on just your say so earn $100 or you will be one of the first to know that the end of the fossil fuel age happened in the oddest way.HenryWindBusters (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

We honestly couldn't care less -- WP:No original research. Wikipedia is not a forum, either. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

xx

Are there any scientists out there presently?HenryWindBusters (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

You have the wrong site. This is an encyclopedia by volunteers, not a forum for original research into fringe theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

To Ian

Hi Ian, My correction of the wind power formula is not fringe. Any scholarly scientist that has used the old wind power formula and reads my work, will understand that I have found errors in the old wind power formula. Not directed in anyway personally at you or Wikipedia but I have simple proof that the old wind power formula is junk science. I am not trying to edit any existing work, but would like those that have posted the false formula to if they will review the errors I have found and take corrective action if they feel it is necessary. I am not promoting anything in the sense that what I am promoting is purely science facts, that if scientists due not agree I found errors cannot be promoted. I specifically want to communicate with those that have put the wind power formula onto Wikipedia and ask them to consider the errors I found and to which I made the corrections.HenryWindBusters (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@HenryWindBusters: As I've said already, Wikipedia does not use original research -- see WP:No original research. You are here to promote your theory. This is not the talk page for whatever article you're talking about, this is a general introduction section. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

To Ian - Try less reading and writing and more meditation.

I waited for your response but no response. Your too kind. You could be speaking to a Copernicus, how would you know? There was no need to call my work fringe. If my discovery makes fossil fuels and nuclear somewhat obsolete, do you think that I will be received by energy interests with open arms. Wikipedia purports to provide the best set of facts available. I have facts that that simply and conclusively prove what I say. I was hoping that you may have knowledge of how I may get those facts to those that write authoritatively for Wikipedia concerning Wind Power. If they decide to have the time to review my information perhaps they would change what they say since what I am claiming would be of enormous importance. If I cannot ask Wikipedia through some sort of open process to consider something, than what is known is limited to controlled channels. I cannot make anyone who contributes to Wikipedia read about the errors that Wikipedia is supporting by why would Wikipedia not allow me to explain what it is and to have it possibly looked atHenryWindBusters (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@HenryWindBusters: If you don't know how to get published in a scientific journal (which we are not!), then there's no reason for us to regard you as an authority. If you keep posting this nonsense, you can be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

To Ian

This will be my last on this topic since I do not want to get blocked. Ian, I offer you the entire $500, if you read where I directed you which I will not say here again to stay in your rules, and if you are then willing to state to me that you do not think I am likely an expert authority on the subject, actually the leading authority on the planet than I will send you the $500. Well let me change that $250 since you may say it just to get the money.

You like to read. Well read and look at the animations and email me and I will send you the $250. I will not be abusive anymore of you and Wikileaks since although I do not like this, without Wikileaks I would not have been able to make this discovery. Please overlook this competitive outburst, but smarty pants, go read and look and if Wikileaks and your policy proves correct in this particular situation, I will by you a few dinner outs. I am not really faulting you, most often you would probably be acting wisely but this time you are so wrong. If you will not look, let me know since I would really appreciate knowing what you think after looking. I will not bother you again since I do not want to get blocked, not sure why, but it would rattle me. Will you let me know if you decide to take a pop at the $250 gift. I really hope you will look, even if it is of no material importance, personally I would appreciate it. It truly would please me.HenryWindBusters (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm blocking you, because you clearly refuse to even try to know what site you're even on. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Article Deletion

I have links could you help me with the creation of the article, please! ruchidamania 13:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruchidamania (talk • contribs)

Hello, Ruchidamania. You say "I have links", but because you have not formatted the references in Articles for creation: Marina Kuwar, it is hard to determine the quality of the references. Please read Referencing for beginners, and please understand that what matters is not how many links you have, but what references you have to high quality independent reliable sources which treat the subject in depth. In fact, links are not required: the references don't even have to be online. If they are available online, then it is a good idea to include a link, as a courtesy; but in most cases the link is the least important part of the reference, after title, publisher, date, page number etc. Having found a number of substantial reliable independent sources, the best thing is to forget every single thing you know about the subject and write an article only from what your sources say. --ColinFine (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that ColinFine intended to refer to Draft:Marina Kuwar. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi

Can there be some protection on Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi as it is receiving persistent vandalism.Jack Upland (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jack Upland. Please file your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. The on-duty administrators who do that kind of work can be found there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Memes

Could we make a page for dank memes plz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.6.186 (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the subject is that you are referring to (a class of Memes perhaps?), but the answer is the same whatever the subject. If there are reliable independent published sources which have discussed the subject in depth, then there can be an article in Wikipedia about it, based almost entirely on what the reliable independent published sources have said about it. If there are not, then no, we cannot have such an article. Please see your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

A former article at Dank memes was deleted and changed to a redirect at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dank memes. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Help 😓😟

Hello. I'm new to Wikipedia. I created an account because I wanted to make a page for my school but it's extremely difficult. I tried using this School Infobox templet but it never looked like the table I wanted.

I need someone to help me with this or if you don't mind to make it for me then I'll supply all the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My editor mp (talk • contribs) 21:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have made a good start with the infobox. I've made one minor correction for you. The article now needs some text about the school, and some references. Secondary schools are usually considered notable in the Wikipedia sense, but can you find WP:Reliable sources where the school has been written about, perhaps in newspapers? Normally, we prefer writers to be independent of the subject of an article, but if you declare your WP:Conflict of interest on your talk page, I don't think there will be a problem. Try to avoid any promotional language. Unfortunately, you made the mistake of starting this and your previous attempt in main space instead of creating a draft in WP:Draft space or in your sandbox. so the article as it stands might get deleted. If this happens, I've copied the content to User:My editor mp/Hoërskool Rob Ferreira High School with another minor alteration for you to work on it before submitting it for review. (This version will stick now.) The school logo can probably be used under WP:Fair use but you need to upload it to Wikipedia, not link to another site. Dbfirs 07:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@My editor mp: You perhaps didn't read the last sentence of the reply above from Dbfirs? A logo would need to be uploaded here at the English Wikipedia with a specific fair-use rationale. Wikimedia Commons will not accept images unless they are free of copyright, so your files there have been deleted as copyright violations. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

adding non-free use images

I want to add an image to an artist page but I can't find any images that don't violate copyright policies and the work is not in the public domain. Are there any acceptations that would allow me to add an image to a living artist page without violating copyright rules?Absflan (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Only if all 10 of these criteria are unambiguously met; because Wikipedia content can be re-used by anyone, the rules are very strict on non-free images. Basically, you can't use an non-free photo of the artist if they're alive; you might be able to use one representative image of their work if you genuinely can't find any free alternative, but you need to reduce the file size as much as possible (as a rough guide, no more than 300px high and wide) to make it of no commercial use to anyone else. ‑ Iridescent 18:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Redirects between different-language Wikipedias

How does one do a redirect between language versions of a corporate name?MLTiede (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Do you really mean redirects, or do you mean Interlanguage links? --David Biddulph (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Im just ridiculously new. Its about Authors

I recently have attended a book festival and met lots of Authors, since looking them up I can not find Wikipedia pages. Do all Published authors deserve a page? Or just prominent/ succesful ones?Yarns110 (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No, not all published authors, only the ones who are WP:Notable in the Wikipedia sense. They need to have been written about in WP:Reliable sources. In particular, the author must have created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Also, see WP:Biographies of living persons. Dbfirs 20:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

improving the review process

I have some comments on improving the review process for new or revised articles. How do I get those comments to someone in administration? ThanksRgschroeder12 (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Rgschroeder12, you can post such comments at the Wikipedia:Article review talk page. Wikipedia:New page review's talk page may also be a suitable place. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

how to change the summary statement

When I go to Wikipedia.org and search for "operations management for services, I see the following summary statement. Operations management is an area of management concerned with designing and controlling the process of production and redesigning business operations

This is exactly the same summary statement as my search for "operations management" which is primarily a manufacturing oriented article. The two statements should be different, since the content is different.

I would like to see the summary statement for the "operations management for services" changed to: Operations management for services has the functional responsibility for producing the services of an organization and providing them directly to its customers

This statement is from the first line in the article on "operations management for services" and accurately explains the content.

How can this summary statement be changed, when searching for content?Rgschroeder12 (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rgschroeder12. It appears you have discovered a bug. The search box at https://www.wikipedia.org displays English Wikidata descriptions if the article has a Wikidata item with an English description. For example, "Wikidata item" in the left pane of Operations management leads to operations management (Q1423657) where the description is: "An area of management concerned with designing and controlling the process of production and redesigning business operations". If there is no Wikidata item or it has no English description then nothing should be shown but instead a Wikidata desription from another listed search result is currently copied, at least for me in Firefox. This also happens for other searches and in cases where the other search result is unrelated to the article. The only way to control the description is to create a Wikidata item and add an English description to it but you shouldn't do that just for this purpose. Wikidata items are intended for other things and this is just a side effect of them. I will search for a bug report and maybe make one if I don't find one. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I have reported the bug at phab:T161422. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Film Amar-Preet

Sat shri Akal to team wikki ,please Guid me about my artical about film Amar-Preet...wikkipedia wants articals on all subjects,I can do something ,but to do work for wikki ,it is very dificult ,a new person cannot do understand the rull of wikki,it is not good,please help in ese language ,how i can do some work for wikki...With RegardsRavinder kaur ravi (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Looks like your page was deleted for being a direct copy-and-paste from another site. We can't accept submissions like these because they're clear violations of copyright policy (see WP:CV). Kevin12 xd 02:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Library of Economics and Liberty http:// econlib .org/

Is Library of Economics and Liberty http:// econlib .org/ considered unreliable, with no useful information? References using the site are being systematically stripped.

I know it has a libertarian bias, but some of its content could be valuable.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jonpatterns. I believe this is related to a discussion happening at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#massive deletions. TimothyJosephWood 12:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Timothyjosephwood:, I've joined that conversation. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

How short definitions appear under the title of an article in mobile view?

For ex. look here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_(computing)

Is it possible to edit and fetch by REST endpoint the string 'Quantities, characters, or symbols on which operations are performed by a computer'?

Thanks.

2A02:A31D:843F:6E00:3285:A9FF:FE8E:531C (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Those summaries are stored in Wikidata:, a sister project to Wikipedia. Each article corresponds to a Wikidata item, which stores structured data about the topic. You can find technical information about using Wikidata data at wikidata:Wikidata:Data access. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 17:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks a lot.2A02:A31D:843F:6E00:3285:A9FF:FE8E:531C (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Is a self-referencing universe a theory of interest?

In my travels, I have thought often about the nature of the universe. I have concluded such thought with this theory: The universe, and everything in it, is a series of datapoints connected in a mind, which reference each other and have many layers of meta-data to reference within themselves, and "consciousness" and limited observation of the world is a microcosm of the entire universe, which is a mind thinking independently. Is this something that is of common public interest, and if so, is there any reputable references for such? In my book and webpage mining, I have found none, so I must ask. ---Araverus Araverus (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use original research and is not a general discussion forum. If you are looking for references on the topic, you might want to try the humanities reference desk. Were this posted there, I would advise you to look into Hermeticism -- that did not use terms from computing or cybernetics, but it's similar. Advaita Vedanta, Heraclitus, and Immanuel Kant are comparable. Again, though, this really belongs on the reference desk and neither this place nor that one is a discussion forum. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

What you're describing is the Biocentric universe theory. An article on the theory was recently removed from Wikipedia (you can view the article at the point it was removed here), so any new article would need to demonstrate improved coverage of the theory, and ideally demonstrate that scientists other than Lanza himself consider the theory credible. ‑ Iridescent 08:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Iridescent. That's all I needed to know.Araverus (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Ian.Thomson - This was quite helpful. I wasn't sure if was described elsewhere, and that which you posted has given me insight. I will read into that before writing said article.Araverus (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft publishing

Is a draft automatically being reviewed or do I have to move the page or something? And the first round of the reviewing process takes seven days? Thank you! Median Hyde (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Median Hyde. You must add {{subst:submit}} to the bottom of the draft, and then someone will review it after you add it. The length of time it takes to review it will depend on how many other Articles for creation submissions are waiting for review. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 19:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

So easy, thanks a lot! Median Hyde (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

What next?

First and second review were not accepted on Draft:High Performance Alloys, Inc.. I tagged as Rfc to get opinions. One quote I used, in what I thought was NPOV, was removed. Still reads okay though. Questions: how long do I wait for comments, how many are needed and what are the next step(s) (if any). Contributor¹⁹⁷² Discuss with me 02:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Contributor1972. You have 22 references in your draft but I do not see any independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the topic High Performance Alloys, Inc. Those are the sources that are needed to establish the notability of the company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328, I do realize that there are not many major sources used (2), a citation of a Federal Space Contract, and two metals industry citations. National Geographic, State of Indiana, Modern Metals and FRANCE-METALLURGIE. Reading the information provided by the reference doesn't immediately make me question the reliability of what is presented though. Are these not considered WP:GFE? If the sources are actually on some banned list, I could try to find other references. I was told the draft could be too long, potentially watering down the Notability. So I made a notability summary for review and comment at: Draft_talk:High_Performance_Alloys,_Inc. to showcase what it looks like without all the dressing and bio. Contributor¹⁹⁷² Discuss with me 06:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Contributor1972, I am not questioning the reliability of those sources, but rather pointing out that I do not see significant coverage of this company in those sources. Passing mentions and directory type listings do not make a company notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328, thank you for further explaining and clarifying the issue. I was falsely under the impression that a wide array of sources, as a broad base, would be better than just a couple sources showing continuous coverage. {[WP:GNG| General notability guideline] defines significant coverage as enough detail to extract information, showing evidence, so that no original coverage is needed. While a 'directory' is cited, it is for the content in the citation; which shows what the award was for and the general basis of one of 43 awarded without being promo-y. There is also a citation from the State of Indiana which was more general on the subject. The name in passing is in relation to what had been achieved as a group. I agree that there are 29 citations by scholarly sources are in passing, but that is in support of being an early adopter of the internet. Maybe it was too much to expect the early nature of those citations to lend credibility to the term 'early adopter' from a list of citations shown in a Google search. Ran across it as it was one of the ways to generate citations and I looked at it as the forest for the tree. Some of the scholars mentioned materials supplied by or purchased from. These were good citations, rather than complaints or insults - which they could have included in the papers. I do see some examples of significant coverage lapses, and those will be fixed by using quotes to validate significant. Contributor¹⁹⁷² Discuss with me 19:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Contributor1972, many of those sources might be fine for verifying secondary details, if and only if other, more comprehensive sources are cited that demonstrate that the company is notable by devoting significant coverage to the company itself. So far, I do not see those sources, and without them, an acceptable Wikipedia article cannot be written. We cannot call a company an "early adopter" of the internet based on a list of mentions that you consider "early". That is original research which we do not allow in Wikipedia articles. We need a reliable independent source which says that very thing, or it does not belong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328, your assistance has been extremely helpful once more. Removed lot's of original research to aid significant coverage by sources. Hopefully my current lesson in NPOV is now complete and I will not need to revisit. Some hidden text has been left (citations not complete), will these hidden comments survive? It is worthy of another review? Contributor¹⁹⁷² Discuss with me 00:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)