Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 667

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 660

←

Archive 665

Proposed to deletion

This Notice has been put on Vikram Page & Paid Article pls help me how can i save this page

Pls Visit to see notice i am not able to understand Guide me

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikram_Sharma

Notice -- (It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: Fails WP:NACTOR. Article created by blocked sock account.

If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming, or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it.

The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days, i.e., after 22:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC).)))

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the deletion policy.

Nominator: Please consider notifying the author/project: == Proposed deletion of Vikram Sharma ==

The article Vikram Sharma has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NACTOR. Article created by blocked sock account.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Manas dubey (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Manas dubey. The article Vikram Sharma was created and deleted twice before. The PROD (proposed deletion) message on the article says that the article fails WP:NACTOR, which is a notability guideline for actors. To pass this notability guideline, an article about an actor must prove that she or he:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; and/or
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following; and/or
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

The article currently does not prove even one of these, as far as I can tell using Google Translate for the Hindi sources. It also does not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guideline, which requires multiple sources, each reliable (by Wikipedia's standard), each independent of the subject (so interviews or a subject's own website do not count), and each giving the subject significant coverage (more than a sentence or two).

The undisclosed payment message on the article probably cannot be removed. Another editor violated Wikipedia's paid editing policy, even though that policy is very easy to comply with.

I hope I have answered your questions, Manas dubey. Either way, you are welcome to return to the Teahouse with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 17:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Paid article notice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karmveer_Choudhary paid notice has been put on this page pls help me how can remove or answer i am creating/edit article Wikipedia pages due to my interest its great adventure for me,non of the cash or kind has been taken from anybody , still a lot of personalities are not on Wikipedia want to create article would request senior editor to help me out, not to scare me with notice it pulling me down i am still learning to become a editor good editor still reading lot . Regards Manas dubey (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Manas dubey. The undisclosed paid editing template was added to Karmveer Choudhary by Doc James. I don't know exactly why, but Doc James is a veteran editor and I'm sure they had a good reason. Perhaps they will come here and discuss it with us. In any case, such templates are used on many articles, and do not directly affect whether an article should be deleted, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Just focus on meeting WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG or (ideally) both — that is how you can avoid articles you've worked on being deleted. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 17:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Manas dubey you are required to disclose previous accounts. And you are required to disclose when you are receiving remuneration for editing articles. It appears their is money out for some of the articles you have written at least. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yale's Secret Societies

Yale College has Senior Class secret societies e.g, Skull & Bones, Scroll & Key, Berzelius and others. To be asked to join in considered an honor The MEMBERSHIP is not secret. The seniors even list it in their year books. Until recently Wikipedia had lists of "eminent members" of these societies listed. An editor took down the lists. I don't know if that was his decision or Wikipedia's. Going through the article's history (Berzelius) I found out who it was. He had a particularly unfriendly message on his Talk page. I asked anyway whose decision this was. This was over a month ago and I never received an answer. I see no reason why eminent members (such as those who already have a Wikipedia page) and have died can not be listed. You sort of lose all privacy when you die. That's how we know how sick FDR was during his last year in office. Nicodemus (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Nicodemus, and welcome to the Teahouse.
If the information about the members is published in a reliable secondary source and properly cited, I do not see a reason why it cannot be included in an article. I have not checked the page history, but the information may have been removed because it was not properly cited, which would have been appropriate. If proper citations are made, the content should be fine to include, as it is not contentious or damaging to the reputations on the people so listed (to my knowledge). Before adding it back in though, I would first recommend opening a discussion about it on the article's talk page. I hope this helps! Cthomas3 (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nicodemus. Your post is written as if the reason for the removal was because of privacy/secrecy concerns. But the removal (at least from Berzelius (secret society) was explicitly (as Cthomas3 guessed) because the list was not sourced to reliable sources. Specifically, the first removal was here, where the user wrote in the edit summary "Removed members without footnotes", and left in the listing of members with footnotes. The next removal was here, with the edit summary flagging that though the remaining ones cited sources, the user had checked the sources cited, and the links were dead links (note: Wikipedia:Link rot, where there are instructions about fixing dead links). The issue, then, calls to our core verifiability policy (and appears to have nothing to do with any qualms about the "secrecy" of the society or who are members). Wikipedia runs on sourcing. Please read the subsection of the verifiability policy at WP:BURDEN. In short, the burden on anyone seeking to retain or place back challenged and removed material is to find and cite a reliable source, using an inline citation that directly supports the material. Content that has been removed for lack of sourcing cannot be returned without doing so. I looked in your edit history to try to locate where you asked about this issue previously, but did not find it. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

How to create an article for a notable professor

Hi, I have created an article to introduce Prof. Xi Zhang. But this article is under speedy deletion. I believe Prof. Xi Zhang follows the Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8. in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Could you please let me know how to create this article? The article name I have created is "Prof. Xi Zhang". Thanks!Qixuan (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Qixuan. I actually would have declined the speedy deletion basis (section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion). Note that that is not a notability criteria, though it hearkens to notability. The most important difference between speedy deletion bases versus something like notability is that speedies are about what is in the article now, rather than the merits of the topic itself. So, for example, a thoroughly notable topic, but that does not even make a claim of importance in the write-up on it is subject to CSD A7. Contrarily, an article that makes a very clear claim of importance, may properly be deleted if, when examined at a deletion discussion, for whether it is a notable topic, on its merits (by looking to whether reliable, independent, secondary sources have covered the topic in substantive detail, or other bases such as those you note above), is found wanting.

In any event, even though I do not think the article met the basis it was tagged and deleted under (nor was it even a close call really), after declining the tagging basis I would have nevertheless then deleted the article as a very blatant advertising piece (under CSD G11), and much more importantly, also as an illegal copyright violation (of this site, under CSD G12). So, even though I think you were misled in a manner, the article was ultimately properly deleted, even if not from a procedural vantage point. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Images and user pages?

Hi! Newbie here, so sorry if I'm asking a really silly/dumb question. I've been just lurking around Wikipedia reading the policies the past few days so I have a general idea of what I'm doing before I begin trying to edit. My username is actually a reference to a favorite (lesser-known) movie character of mine, and I was considering adding an image of that character to my user page (not as decoration, but rather just to provide context on why I chose my username for anyone who happens to read it). However, skimming through some of the policies regarding creating user pages, it looks like certain images are not allowed to be used on Wikipedia. Would it be considered acceptable to use an image from the Internet of this character on my user page, and simply state that I don't own the copy rights to the image? Or is using an image on a user page a gray area I should avoid? Thanks to any help anyone can provide. ~ Jexica303 (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Probably not, I'm afraid Jexica303. If you can find an image of the character which has been expressly released under a licence compatible with Wikipedia (such as CC-BY-SA) you can use it freely; but that is rather unlikely for a character for a film, because this licence allows anybody to reuse it for any purpose, commercial or not.

The conditions you are probably talking about are those for using non-free images, and Wikipedia's rules are quite restrictive: in particular, the criterion 9 of the non-free content criteria only allows them to be used in articles, not in user space. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, no prob. I doubt it would be compatible then with that license (though admittedly I'm not familiar at all with CC-BY-SA) so in that case I will avoid adding any images to my user page. Thanks so much for the clarification, ColinFine! ~ Jexica303 (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jexica303. You can add images to your user page as long as you find them on Wikimedia Commons. There are over 40 million media files there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! :) ~ Jexica303 (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding external source written by yourself

I am glad that Herman Armour Webster finally got a page. I have been studying Webster since 2009 and will shortly publish his fully annotated biography. I assume that I can add this as an external reference to his webpage. What I am not sure about is the morality (or policy) regarding the following: The book will be self published because I am an unknown author and did not want to run around looking for a publisher. Is it acceptable to include a link to the place (on Amazon) where the book can be purchased. I am not making any one go there. I am not making anyone make a purchase who does not wish to. You tell me I cannot decide. Please respect my indecision and asking first. Nicodemus (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Nicodemus!
I would caution you against adding an external resource that you wrote yourself to any article on Wikipedia, as that could very easily be construed as a conflict of interest. I am absolutely not questioning the veracity of what you have written, nor am I attempting to accuse you of doing so for personal gain; the issue is that even the perception of COI is something that we very much try to avoid here on Wikipedia. If someone else reads your book, decides it is a great resource, and adds it themselves to the article, then that is absolutely acceptable. However, you really should not do so yourself. Please don't hesitate to reply here if this does not completely answer your question. Cthomas3 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Oldsilenus. I disagree partially with what Cthomas3 wrote above. Self-published books are rarely considered reliable sources on Wikipedia, since they lack professional editorial control. The only exception would be if the author is widely acknowledged as an expert on the topic who has previously had work on the same topic issued by mainstream publishers. However, you state above that you are an "unknown author", so there is no way to verify the reliability of your book. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Very good point, Cullen328. I had not considered the self-published part. Thank you for picking that up. Cthomas3 (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Popup when reading a page

I was on the page Grammatical case and got a popup saying

If someone searched for 'latin dative', would they want to read this article?

With three buttons saying "Yes", "No", "I dont know" and a link to a Privacy Statement. I clicked a blank area in the popup and it disappeared so I dont know what was intended to happen if I clicked one of the buttons.

I couldnt figure out what this is. Im not complaining, I might actually be able to use this to help. But Im not even sure this popup is from Wikipedia and it's difficult to search for since there is already an extension called "Navigation popups". If this is from Wikipedia I'm sure it's live for everybody else too or soon will be. Could someone please give me more information? —Soap— 23:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Soap. I am unfamiliar with this popup. If you don't get an informative answer soon, I suggest that you ask at Village pump - Technical. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

OK thank you. I had forgotten the name of the Village Pump. It might be a very new thing, since the thread addressing it there is from just yesterday. It seems unpopular, but perhaps it can be enabled as a user-selectable option so that people who like it can still participate. —Soap— 03:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Persistent spammy reference

A user is including a spammy link to their own work in the articles Monoidal category, Coherence condition, Coherence theorem, reverting any time it is removed, and not responding on the talk page. What's the appropriate way to handle this without edit warring? - Antonfire (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

In the specific cases, the spammer is an unregistered editor (IP address), and the least disruptive way to deal with the disruption is to request semi-protection of the pages. I have done this for you. Making such a request is the appropriate way to deal with it. It is also appropriate to warn the disruptive editor with a standard Twinkle warning template. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me.Why my wekipedia"Kai cheng Cao" was deleted?

I just started a wekipedia editing.I wanted to create my own wekipedia article.Why my wekipedia"Kai cheng Cao" was deleted later? Joe CaoJoe Cao (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Joe Cao, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a message on your talk page explaining why it was deleted. If you have never created an article before, you should read: Wikipedia:Your first article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Orphan page message - how to remove?

Hello,

A page I edit, Dr Pimms... has a banner saying it's an orphan page. However, I have cross-linked from the ACT Writing and Publishing Awards. Is it possible to remove the banner? Even if it's only been linked back once? Thank you for your advice!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_Pimms,_Intermillennial_Sleuth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT_Writing_and_Publishing_Awards

SunnyBoi (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, SunnyBoi.

As the information page linked from the banner – Wikipedia:Orphan explains – the article is no longer an orphan and the banner can be removed.

Remove it by editing the wikicode of the article and removing the line {{Orphan|date=August 2017}}. More information here: Help:Maintenance template removal. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Finnusertop! :) SunnyBoi (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Somebody merge or move those articles I've created

These articles I created first, but then some other users move it into redirected, or even delete the article, and create other articles: Flatliners (2018 film), Papillon (upcoming film), Ocean's Eight, and Pacific Rim: Maelstrom. In Flatliners (2018 film), I predicted the wrong year of the release, and someone instantly created a new article, when the year of the release announced. Also in Pacific Rim, when the title "Maelstrom" still remained. The article Papillon (upcoming film) is deleted without any announcement. I'm not praised this action so much. I just want to make some opinions about this, thanks. Giangkiefer (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Making articles about upcoming films with no release date announced is discouraged because they are unlikely to be reliably sourced. If there are sufficient reliable sources to merit it, then the article is viable. Which is why an article you created that did not meet the criteria (no reliable sources). was recreated when it did meet the criteria (because sources had been published, ie. the release date). you can read WP:N and WP:V and WP:RS for more details. A Guy into Books (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Also the name of the film can change before release, which is why Pacific Rim: Maelstrom is now a redirect to Pacific Rim: Uprising. I can understand you are ahead of the curve here, but Wikipedia tends to deliberately lag behind the news. A Guy into Books (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

birth year details for living person biography

If article creator would not mention the birth year of the living person on his biography page , then would that lead to deletion of the article or its completely a choice to put birth year or not ?Nirajgera (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Nirajgera, and welcome to the Teahouse.
It is absolutely not required to have a birth year on an article about a living person. In fact, in order for a birth year to be present on the article, it must either be mentioned in a reliable secondary source, or sourced from the person him- or herself, such as their own website, personal blog, or an interview. Without one of these sources, the birth year should not be in the article, even if it is "known" by others. I hope this answers your question; if not, please feel free to ask further questions! Cthomas3 (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nirajgera. Yes, Cthomas3 is correct that birth years or birth dates must be properly referenced and must be omitted lacking such references. That being said, year or date of birth is basic biographical and encyclopedic information which should be included in all biographies if properly referenced. It should not be omitted on the whim of one editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Quite right, Cullen328. It occurred to me as I wrote my original response that the page creator should not be surprised if someone else adds the birth year if it can be properly referenced. Cthomas3 (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Nirajgera If you would like to tell us about the article we might be able to offer more help. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Why the name "Touchard polynomials"

September 8, 2017 About an article in Wikipedia. Hello!

I am writing about the article “Touchard polynomials” on Wikipedia. I think this name given somehow to the described polynomials is not appropriate. The polynomials described there were used as early as 1843 in the works of Grunert (see [3], [4], and [12]) and possibly could have been used earlier. Bell [1] called them “exponential polynomials”, so did Touchard [13]. They were called exponential polynomials also by J-Carlo Rota [15] and other researches. Under the name “exponential polynomials” they appeared in a number of publications, including my papers (see below). Most properties were found by Grunert, Bell, and in the papers listed below, especially in [4], [5], [10], and [11]. Most of these papers are available online. Touchard has not much contribution to their theory and was not the first one to mention them. He was just one of the many authors. It is not clear at all how the name “Touchard polynomials” appeared and why. Moreover, the name is misleading and leads to confusion in the mathematical community, because it diverts attention away from established publications. Simple professional ethics requires that the article be rewritten and updated. It will be justified to change the title to “exponential polynomials”.

[1] E. T. Bell, “Exponential numbers,” The American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 411–419,

[2] E. T. Bell, “Exponential polynomials,” Annals of Mathematics, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 258– 277, 1934.

[3] Khristo N. Boyadzhiev, Close encounters with the Stirling numbers of the second kind, The Mathematics Magazine, 85, No. 4, (October 2012), 252-266.

[4] Khristo N. Boyadzhiev. Exponential polynomials, Stirling numbers, and evaluation of some Gamma integrals, Abstract and Applied Analysis, Volume 2009, Article ID 168672

[5] Khristo N. Boyadzhiev, A Series transformation formula and related polynomials, International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences ,Vol. 2005 (2005), Issue 23, Pages 3849-3866.

[6] Khristo N. Boyadzhiev, Lah numbers, Laguerre polynomials of order negative one, and the nth derivative of exp(1/x), Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Mathematica 8(1), (2016), 22–31.

[7] Khristo N. Boyadzhiev, Power Series with Binomial Sums and Asymptotic Expansions, Int. Journal of Math. Analysis, Vol. 8 (2014), no. 28, 1389-1414.

[8] Khristo N. Boyadzhiev, Ayhan Dil, Geometric polynomials: properties and applications to series with zeta values, Analysis Mathematica, 42 (3) (2016), 203–224

[9] L. Carlitz, “Single variable Bell polynomials,” Collectanea Mathematica, vol. 14, pp. 13–25, 1962.

[10] Ayhan Dil and Veli Kurt, Investigating Geometric and Exponential Polynomials with Euler-Seidel Matrices, Journal of Integer Sequences, Vol. 14 (2011), Article 11.4.6; [11] Ayhan Dil and Veli Kurt, POLYNOMIALS RELATED TO HARMONIC NUMBERS AND EVALUATION OF HARMONIC NUMBER SERIES I1, INTEGERS 12 (2012), A38;

[12] J. A. Grunert, “Uber die Summerung der Reihen...,” Journal fur die reine und angewandte Mathematik, vol. 25, pp. 240–279, 1843.

[13] J. Touchard, “Nombres exponentiels et nombres de Bernoulli,” Canadian Journal of Mathematics, vol. 8, pp. 305–320, 1956.

[14] J. Touchard, “Proprietes arithmetiques de certains nombres recurrents,” Annales de la Soci´et´e Scientifique de Bruxelles A, vol. 53, pp. 21–31, 1933.

[15] G.-C. Rota, Finite Operator Calculus, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, 1975

With best regards,

Khristo Boyadzhiev Professor of Mathematics Department of Mathematics and Statistics Ohio Northern University

Kboyadzhiev (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kboyadzhiev. I do not have the expertise in mathematics to evaluate whether or not the article title should be changed. However, I am familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As a general rule, we use commonly recognized names as article titles, even if such names are not 100% accurate. You are making a good case that the article title should be changed, but the appropriate place for that specific conversation is Talk:Touchard polynomials, so I suggest that you post this information there. You may also want to post a notice at WP:WikiProject Mathematics. Thanks for contributing your expertise to Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kboyadzhiev. You can also start a formal move discussion at that talk page by following the instructions provided at Wikipedia:Requested moves. By the way, posting in multiple places will lead multiple people to expend their time answering the same question. In this case, at Wikipedia:Help desk#Article "Touchard polynomials", you were also advised that the article's talk page was where you should discuss the title issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

How do I present citations correctly?

I am looking for some guidance on how i should present citations in my recently rejected article "Christopher McCafferty DJ"

Many Thanks for your assistance.

Slovo69Slovo69 (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Slovo69. Citing sources is not some general exercise but is for corroborating the actual and specific information in the body of an article. Accordingly, citations are placed in the body of the prose of the article, right at the locations in the text where the information appears, that the cited sources are placed to verify. (To be clear, often it is fine to place the cites at the end of a sentence, and sometimes even at the end of a paragraph, though terminating at the end of a sentence or sentences is more focused, allowing the reader to tell what source verifies what content.) The farther you get from this one-to-one relationship, the harder it becomes to verify the content. With what you have—just a pastiche of footnotes inserted at the end of the article—it is not possible to even tell whether you are citing sources that verify the content, or just pointing to sources that mention the topic. On this, see WP:INTEGRITY, a subsection of Wikipedia:Citing sources, which has a lot of general information you might find helpful on your question. You might start, though, at Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Report a investigator who hasn't handled a sockpuppet investigation properly?

I would like help from administrators for reporting a sockpuppet investigation ill-handled by an "investigator". Can anybody enlighten me where can i do this or this is even possible ? Thanks! -Casktopic_say 16:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Casktopic. As with most questions posed here that are hypothetical rather than tells us the actual context, the lack of specifics make a focused answer difficult. In general, you might post to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations, though I might suggest somewhere else entirely if I knew the context, possibly even Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, if there was a wrongdoing involved and other conditions that would warrant a post there. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Speaking as said investigator, the SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Capitals00. I think that page speaks for itself. GAB^gab 16:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello GAB. Your reponse with terms like "baseless" and "retaliatory" was highly exaggerated. I don't know how they elect investigators here but your attitude towards that request speaks volumes how old editors treat new editors with contempt, which is very well documented outside wikipedia now and is more than enough for people to shy away from wikipedia as a reliable source of information -Casktopic_say 16:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Casktopic. I would need hours to sort all this as an outsider with little knowledge of the topic involved. On the other hand, I am experienced at a variety of methods to come to a quick decision on whether sockpuppetry is unlikely or warrants a further more time-intensive look for real evidence. My ten minute look here of discussions, a few of the edits involved, and a short comparison of the two editors' edits, gives me a number of impressions—nothing I would act on, far too preliminary but, such as they are: It is unlikely the two users you brought to the sockpuppet investigation are in fact sockpuppets; that your reason for doing so is that you are a POV warrior and that your edits are indeed attempts to include improper original research--regardless even if it turned out the two users were sockpuppets, the fact is that the evidence you cite gives nothing to go on; when accusing people formally, you really need to have your ducks in a row, or expect a summary close); that different users correctly citing the same policy in reverts is not an indication of sockpuppetry, but of the policy actually applying to the edits; that you are under the mis-impression that citing sources for ones edits makes any reverts improper, when citing sources is a threshold for inclusion of challenged material but not a sword for keeping such content in; other policies can and do apply; and that you should be mindful of WP:BOOMERANG. Sorry, Just the way I see it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

No worries Fughettaboutit. Thanks for your contribution! -Casktopic_say 17:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I would like for someone to explain what kind of copyright tags are appropriate for uploading an image to wikimediacommons

I would like for someone to explain what kind of copyright tags are appropriate for uploading an image to wikimediacommons. Every single time i upload an image and add it to my wiki page, it always gets flagged. My page was dedicated to explaining the DC Comics crossover "The Button", and i always put my images on the page with acknowledgement to the original creator. So why do all of them have to be taken down, even if I gave credit to the original owner? Darkseid is (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Darkseid is: I am not an expert in this subject, but I think I can figure out the issue here. Copyrighted images on Wikipedia may only be used under a "fair use" claim, and there are three flagrant violations of the conditions of fair use that I can see in your uploading of the image. One, you are uploading it to Wikimedia Commons. Non-free use images must never be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, instead to the local Wikipedia. Second, you seem to be uploading a high-resolution image, which also is contrary to policy: when uploading a fair-use image, it should always be of a lower quality. Lastly, but certainly not least, you have the wrong licensing listed (it should say something along the lines of "non-free media information and use rationale" at the top, not anything about "Creative Commons"). As an example of a properly uploaded fair-use photo, see the main file for the page Aladdin Sane. Notice the low quality, that it is uploaded to the English Wikipedia, not Wikimedia Commons, and the licensing listed. See WP:F for more information. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Darkseid is, and welcome to the Teahouse. The issue here is that it is not sufficient to simply credit the copyright owner when one wants to use their works. All images and other media files on Wikimedia Commons must have been designated by their owners as being released under a license compatible with CC-BY-SA (aside from cases where copyright has expired and/or the work is in the public domain for another reason) — this means that the creator or other owner of an image must have designated that that specific image (or other media) can be used, modified and even sold by anyone who wants to. For obvious reasons, very little comic-book art is released under such licenses.

Now when it comes to image use on Wikipedia, there is a Fair Use exception in copyright law which includes, among other things, educational use. Small thumbnail images of book or comic-book covers, for example, are allowed under fair use, as are many corporate logos. Such images, however, must be hosted on Wikipedia's servers, not at Commons. For further reading, see Wikipedia:Image use policy. I hope this has answered your question; in any case feel free to return to the Teahouse with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 18:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

what is the protocol for naming a new page about a same-named person?

Leslie Stein exists, about a judge born in 1956.
I want to open a new page about a younger person, an artist who also is named Leslie Stein.
What is the protocol for naming this new page?
1. My ideal would be to rename the existing page page "Leslie Stein (judge)" and the new page "Leslie Stein (author)". Is it allowed to rename an existing page?

Rbd001 (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rbd001: Hello and welcome. Regarding the title, I would start with simply adding a disambiguation to the title of the page you want to create, before getting into the discussion as to whether the other page should have one as well. That discussion would get into discussing prominence, ease of searching, and other technical issues. "Leslie Stein (artist)" or "Leslie Stein (author)" should work. Then a disambiguation link could be added to the existing article; there are templates for that, but it essentially would say "For the artist, see Leslie Stein (artist)".

Regarding the article itself, you may want to review Your First Article to learn what is being looked for, and you may also wish to use the Article Wizard to help you create the article. You will be expected to provide independent reliable sources indicating how the person you are writing about meets notability guidelines(please review at WP:NARTIST). If you have other questions, please ask. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I have renamed the existing page. Simply create the new page as Leslie Stein (author). A Guy into Books (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Help regarding placement of images

Hello, Is it possible that someone may help me to edit this article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChattBir_Zoo I'm trying to place the images to the right of the screen, with the "list of animals" staying on the left. I've somehow messed up the symmetry! Thanks. -Casktopic_say 18:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Casktopic, do you mean having the list of animal (ie "Tiger enclosure", "Herd of Asian elephants", etc) pictures on the left within the article ChattBir Zoo or am I misunderstanding? If that is what you meant, I tried it and it does not look as good in my opinion. That aside, this is what you are most likely looking for.--TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The images are on the right for me and the list on the left. The list is immediately to the left of the images unless the window is narrow and the list moves down below the images. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts TheSandDoctor & PrimeHunter. Yes I wanted list on the left and images on the right. It looks alright on the web version but gets messy on the mobile version! -Casktopic_say 21:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

How long does it take for the biopage to go live on wikipedia?

Hi,

How long does it take for the biopage to go live on wikipedia? Also, how do I upload my picture for my page?

Tunku Harun (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Tunku Harun, and welcome to the Teahouse. On Wikipedia we don't have "biopages", we have encyclopedia articles (though it's true some of those are biographies). When a page "goes live" depends on how it is created. Some pages go through the Articles for Creation process; others are created directly as new articles (but are likely to be deleted if not created by a veteran editor who has avoided common newbie mistakes); and some begin life as a sandbox draft, like the draft you created at User:Tunku Harun/sandbox, and need to be moved manually to "article space" once they're ready.

You may not be aware of this, and it may come as a surprise to you given your subject's many accomplishments, but it does not appear to me that he is 'notable' as Wikipedia defines that term. You have collected a number of media articles which mention him, but none of them seem to go into much depth, and most of the accomplishments you have listed are not cited to a source at all. You can read WP:GNG for further guidance, and if you are the same person as the Tunku Harunnarasheed in the draft, or are close to him, then you should also read WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI as well.

If after all that reading you still believe that your subject merits an article — and that you can write about him objectively — then you are more than welcome to come back to the Teahouse and ask again about uploading a photo, which is somewhat complicated and may be a moot point. You're welcome to return with any other questions you may have as well. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 00:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

something wrong

hey

some big mistake and some false infos here at wiki :( can not edit it be rightly. what can i do to set it right. who can help with it? important thx and wishIngoSchöllgen (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Given that the only edits you have tried to make on Wikipedia have all been vandalism that was properly reverted, IngoSchöllgen, it would not be appropriate for us to help you make the edits you seem to want. If as you claim you founded Chaturbate, there should be media articles naming you, yet I could not find any which did so. And Wikipedia only reports information found in secondary sources; nobody can simply show up here and say an article should be changed just because they say so. The relevant policies are Verifiability and No original research. Feel free to return to the Teahouse if you have further questions after familiarizing yourself with these policies. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 01:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Title Change

Hello There, can you notify me how to change the title of a certain Wikipedia article. It would be extremely helpful if you do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahir M (talk • contribs) 01:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mahir M. Editors change the titles of articles by using the move function. In effect, an editor is "moving" the content from an old page to a new page with a better title. In order to carry out this operation, your account must be autoconfirmed, which means an account at least four days old with at least ten edits. Your account is too new. If you post the current title, the new title and the reason, an experienced editor will do it for you, if it is an uncontroversial matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: When does a draft become a published article.

My article: LAYTONGKU has been placed in a draft situation for me to work on. I have completed it although maybe at some point in the future I might add photos..at this point I do not want any photos or templates added so I am finished with it in this first publication. Please let me know when it can be published and available to the public. PaLukiWa/Tzaims Luksus, FRSAPalukiwa (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Palukiwa and welcome back to the Teahouse.

As it stands, your draft needs a considerable amount of work to bring it into conformance with the normal appearance of a Wikipedia article. I will place an "articles for creation" template at the top which contains a "submit" button for when you think it is ready for a more formal review. If I remember correctly from earlier, this article depends very much on your own work, so there is an issue of conflict of interest that applies. It also looks like you have not discovered how to do named references, so the citation to your thesis is repeated numerous times in the "References" section. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Another editor, JJMC89, and I have done some cleanup work on your draft.

The major problem that I see is that your draft is almost entirely dependent on your unpublished thesis, which would cause us to mark it as original research. As an unpublished work, Wikipedia does not consider it a verifiable reference. Wikipedia is not an alternative publishing medium for your work. Your work must be published elsewhere, in a form that can be verified and can be considered reliable, before it can be used on Wikipedia. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

speedy deletion

i dont know why i have a speedy deletion on my page tho i deleted most of my stuff Hello0000000000000000Hello0000000000000000 (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

If you're talking about your userpage, Hello0000000000000000 I don't see any speedy deletion notice, or any deletion notice at all. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 17:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Ack, apparently you are talking about Rowntree Montessori Schools. You have trimmed out a lot of promo content, but the introduction shouldn't have a header, and additional refs, like a newspaper article or two, would help a lot. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 17:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

i dont understand, can u plz edit it to the correct format for me?

I there Hello0000000000000000, I have done the requested formatting for you and have added an additional reference. Please see if you can find any more to add that are reliable sources, As for the speedy deletion tag, I see it on there and, while I cannot remove it myself (as I am not an administrator) and neither can you, I doubt that it will be deleted at its current state as I reran the copyright test and it came back empty handed and the promotional text has been removed from the article I removed the tag as the copyright violation report came back less than 10% since you removed the text and it no longer contains the promotional language. Please also see WP:Your first article as that may contain some helpful information for you in creating/improving this article. Hopefully that answered your question, if not please do reply here. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to be an administrator to remove a speedy deletion template, TheSandDoctor - you just can't do so as the article creator. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, okay, good to know. I just thought that removal of tags should be left to admins regardless. Now that I know otherwise, can help in future situations like this where article was improved/cleanedup and deletion tags are no longer applicable. Thanks for the info Cordless Larry! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: For future reference, you never simply remove a G12. You mark the article for history redaction (using {{Copyvio-revdel}} – and typically tag the talk page with {{cclean}}, and warn the user with {{uw-copyright-new}} or related). Simply removing a G12, as you did, leaves an illegal copyright violation sitting in the page history, able to be accessed. I have taken care of it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, apologies - I should have pointed out that the copyvio issue needed dealing with. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that Fuhghettaboutit Cordless Larry, I didn't realize that a template had to be added in its place (and one on talk page), I will do that from now on. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello0000000000000000, schools that do not grant diplomas do not get articles on Wikipedia, except in exceptional cases. This school isn't an exceptional case. So, per WP:SCH/AG#N, I've blanked the article and redirected the title to the community the school is located in. John from Idegon (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The answer to Life, Universe and Everything: prevention is easier than treating

On Wikipedia there are articles about people who are still alive. About them article begin with:

”Name Surname is a philosopher, physicist, mathematician, engineer”.

There are also articles about people who are no longer alive and about them article begin with:

”Name Surname was a philosopher, physicist, mathematician, engineer”.

Hoping that Wikipedia will last forever, billions and billions of articles will emerge over time.

Now the question that arise: we will change the articles about people who are still alive with "was" after they die, or maybe it is better to write about those who are not anymore among us:

"Name Surname (n. NNNN - d. DDDD) is a philosopher, physicist, mathematician, engineer”.

[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gvitalie#Prevention_is_easier_than_treating) Gvitalie (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gvitalie. Thank you for this suggestion, but using "is" to refer to somebody who is no longer alive is not idiomatic English, so that is not a workable solution. In any case, articles about people contain other verbs as well, to refer to the person and their life and work throughout the article. When a person dies, most of these verbs will have to be changed from the present to the past tense (and the "is" in the first sentence is usually not the problem - it can be easy to miss a verb in the middle of a long article, but not at the start of the first paragraph). I don't think that this is a large problem throughout the encyclopedia, though. When an article is updated with a death date, I believe the verb tenses are usually updated more or less immediately as well, by one or more editors. --bonadea contributions talk 09:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Infinitely many articles, if hopping Wikipedia will last forever.

In such case, let put "was" for all of them, "to avoid over reviving to much of humanity", if citing Christ (with humor). Gvitalie (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

No, using the past tense to refer to living people would not make sense in English. It's just how the language works. --bonadea contributions talk 09:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Monday was, mean that Monday is dead, and won't be any more? That is a Q that need to be put at right place. Gvitalie (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The Monday you are referring to will never happen again, so yes. Another Monday will happen, but that will be a new Monday. Likewise Abraham Lincoln was, but a new Abraham Lincoln could be born, and be. A Guy into Books (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Tense says: "Biographies of living persons should generally be written in the present tense, and biographies of deceased persons in the past tense." PrimeHunter (talk) 10:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm completely agree with that, lesser with what they are. Let me explain with an example:

"Name Surname (b. BBBB - d. DDDD) is a heaven philosopher, physicist, mathematician, engineer". That mean, after His/Her death He/She is still philosopher, physicist, mathematician, engineer. And yes, I'm citing from that link "When discussing the work of a writer or philosopher, even if they are dead, the present tense may be used: "In his Institutes, Calvin teaches ...". The general rule is to describe statements made in literature, philosophy and art in the eternal present." Gvitalie (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking the vital status of a personage should not be described in the eternal present. The manual of style entry simply refers to works done during the lifetime of the subject being referred to as being the words of the person. example: "In his plays, Shakespeare uses Elizabeth English", not "used". This makes sense, since it is how the arts are often described. It does not extend to "Shakespeare is a playwright" which is incorrect style, and should be "Shakespeare was a playwright". As this statement is referring to the person, it should correctly refer to the persons vital status by using the past tense to indicate the subject is deceased.

Take this example from Jesus Christ. "Jesus (c.4BC – c.30/33 AD), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Christ, was a Jewish preacher and religious leader who became the central figure of Christianity." No one could be described as still being what he was in life, after his death, more than Jesus Christ, therefore your argument is rejected. Hope this helps explain the issue. A Guy into Books (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

A Guy into Books, You're absolutely and perfectly right.

They dead and their work "was".

They "was" philosophers, physicists, mathematicians, engineers.

They no any more philosophers, physicists, mathematicians, engineers.

Now is Our time to be "was". (Note: I'm not Diogenes and less Alexander_the_Great, because I'm an Idiot and I like to admit it) Gvitalie (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: Posting Original Photos

I once asked how to add photos to my article: LAYTONGKU. I received several replys that didn't realize the photos I wanted to add were those I took myself in Laytongku last winter from February through April. Also there are templates that can be added with specific data that appear in the upper right hand area of an article. I do not plan to add any since I have given the exact co-ordinates for the Village of Laytongku and since this is a sensitive place that is generally not reasonably of any interest to tourists I feel only one or two photos which would be of an architectural and tradition clothing nature be added. Is there a simple way to just click on something to 'add' an original photo? Or a simple way to click on the photo template that can include a photo. Please help...anyone? Please no complicated replies PaLukiWa/Tzaims Luksus, FRSAPalukiwa (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes there is. If the images are yours and you are alright with giving them to the world. you can upload them at [wikimedia commons]. you will not be able to take them down or claim copyright on the images once this is done. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 07:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually the copyright remains yours, the Creative Commons Licence does not take away your rights, it gives rights to others, but your right to be acknowleged as the original photographer remains intact. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Once uploaded you can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial to put it in the article. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 07:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Roger (Dodger67), although you are technically correct, licensing an image under a CC by SA license effectively destroys the economic value of the copyright, along with any artistic control of its use. Who's going to pay for an image if they can get it and do what they want with it for free? John from Idegon (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox issue on article Gurgaon district

Help me on this article. Infobox of this article is messed up. — 1997 kB 06:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello 1997kB and welcome to the Teahouse.

It appears that someone recently made changes to the template used in these articles in a way that substituted fixed strings where there had been calls on variables. I restored the template {{Infobox India district}} to its earlier state. I think this action has fixed the problem you were seeing, but it may take a while before all the affected pages catch up with the changes. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

To @1997kB: What exactly is wrong with it? Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 07:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks jmcgnh. Now problem is solved Aguyintobooks. — 1997 kB 08:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Ground Penetrating Radar

I recently edited this age as it contained a number of errors and missing facts.

I did not remove any info or persons, but corrected incorrect info. I left the absurd statement about rapid recon road surveys for mines it is such a stupid comment. I specialise in realtime rapid recon surveys along roads and 10mph is a little too fast when the GPR is behind the vehicle.(It's also ridiculous in mine detection) It's just as dangerous when GPR is out front as you are onto the target before you interp it.

So who is the "expert" correcting my work history? Radteam Radteam (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Radteam: Hello and welcome. Having looked at the edit history of the article and your edits, I would have to agree with the removal of what you added. While I believe that you have worked in the field you are writing in, your word is not sufficient to post information in an article. First, any Wikipedia user can claim to be anyone or claim to have any level of expertise. The rest of us have no way of knowing if that is true or not. Second, Wikipedia needs independent reliable sources that can actually be verified. We cannot verify your word unless it is published in an independent reliable source that can be viewed; be it a book, website, TV news report, or anything published by someone other than yourself describing the information you want to add. If the source of published information is you, then you should not add it to the article directly as it is a conflict of interest, but you can request that others add it on the article talk page.

I would also ask you if your username represents a group, as it contains "team". Group or shared usernames are not permitted by the username policy. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I added some references. also the book the information comes from is in the sources section. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 11:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean the "Have radar; will travel" source that Radteam added here, Aguyintobooks? Is that a published book? I can't find any evidence of its existence. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: Actually I can't find any evidence the book exists either. I confused it with another book when checking it at a glance. Most of the information is cited elsewhere, so I'm not sure its incorrect. but I don't have details of the 1995 'No Dig' conference in Singapore. It would be helpful if Radteam could provide the ISBN/ASBN of the book or provide another source. (ping @Radteam:. I can only find two publications by 'John Trust' and both are specialist archeological publications. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 12:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

false accusation of edit warring by hot shot

Hi, can I get mediation or help with an aleged edit warring accusation against me by a cool, neutral WP-vet, please? Ty :) RE: my recent edits in Christian messianic prophecies --79.194.68.184 (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking at it now. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Resources

Hello! I would like to create a page for a journalist who has been contributing to the Washington Post for over fifty years. Other than one article written about him, I am unable to find any other resources. Would this article be enough for that?Stephvelander (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Stephvelander, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, unless the one article goes very deeply in depth (the length of a chapter in a book or more) — without being an interview of the journalist you want to write about, because that would render the source primary rather than secondary — then at least one and preferably two or more other sources would be required in order to establish the notability of that journalist, as Wikipedia uses the term notability. If the article you have is not of that scope, then you will need to either find other sources (remember that they don't have to be online) or else find a different topic to create an article about. Or you could work on improving existing articles. Sorry if this isn't the answer you wanted to hear. Feel free to return to the Teahouse with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 18:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, Stephvelander, although you could use the Post to reference facts, anything coming from them would not help to establish notability for the person in question, as in order to show notability, sources must be independent. Pretty obviously, a person's employer of 50 years would not be independent. John from Idegon (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, everything noted. Stephvelander (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)