Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:55, 8 February 2015

• WP:TEA
• WP:TH

Marchjuly, a Teahouse host

• To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
• About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246

How to ensure that an image is OK to use

I am working with a few other editors to improve the Gun show loophole article. I would like to add an image. I really like this one that I found via Google images that says it's labeled for reuse. How do I ensure that an image is OK to use? Lightbreather (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Categories

How do I take my user page out of some categories? It's in a few that I don't want it to be in. YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What's the scope of "orphan page" status?

On Feb. 6 I made some edits on PLUNA destinations (diff here; history here), to say

1. that the airline has ceased operations (which was stated in PLUNA) and
2. to remove the "orphan" tag, because PLUNA links to it as Main article from the Destinations section.

Jetstreamer reverted my edits (diff here) with the comments

1. "Unsourced" and
2. "It's an orphan, actually. WP:ALSO applies for parent article."

(1) is not at issue: I should have sourced the statement. But when I asked Jetstreamer about (2), their reply didn't address the point at all. (There was another issue, also my error but not relevant here.)

I followed up with

I still don't see a source for your statement that "WP:ALSO applies for parent article". I'm not going to make an edit war about this, but unless there is an actual policy about it, PLUNA destinations is not an orphan as long as it's linked from PLUNA.

and I restored (1), properly sourced. Jetstreamer then made major revisions to the page in recognition of the airline's defunctness ("defunctitude"?), but left the "orphan" tag even though it is still linked from PLUNA.

So far I've had no reply. I haven't been able to find any policy about parent articles not counting against orphanhood, and frankly it seems a bizarre idea, in actuality as well as in the metaphor. PLUNA is linked to from about 54 pages, excluding redirect, talk, and user pages, so it certainly is no orphan. My question is,

In order not to be an orphan, does a page have to have links from outside its "family", or at least other than its "parent", however defined?*

*I haven't found any definition of "parent article", either.

Please {{ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Thnidu: "WP:ALSO applies for parent article" meant you cannot remove the orphan tag just because you added a link to the "See also" section of the parent article when WP:ALSO says do not repeat links already in the body the article. The orphan status did not change after you did that. I thought this was clear. I hope it is now. Nevertheless, the orphan tag can perfectly be removed according to WP:ORPH because at least another article links to it.--Jetstreamer  00:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a question concerning the "creation" of a new term, word or title.

Basically, I am looking for a legitimate way to list one more meaning to an existing word in Wikip. EMPHE (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure you're thinking about Misplaced Pages, not Wiktionary? Thnidu (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi EMPHE, welcome to the Teahouse. Which meaning of which word do you have in mind, and do you want to create a new page about the meaning? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

3 strikes an out???

So, I am still struggling to understand the ins & outs of being a Wiki user/ contributor. One might say I already have 2 strikes! Initially I tried editing some articles relevant to recent discoveries made at our research institute. While I did not believe there to be a conflict of interest, I now understand from Wiki's viewpoint there was, and have since learned how to go about suggesting these kinds of edits.

Then, I created my user page. I had assumed a user page was not visible to the world at large, but apparently it is. It too was deleted, allegedly because my biographical information was considered "self-promotion". I was not attempting to promote anything, simply to provide other Wiki folks with user pages an opportunity to reach out to me based upon my qualifications, for the potential of working together on articles of interest.

So this process has taught me that Wiki is hyper-sensitive to self-promoters, spammers & profiteers. In hindsight I can understand you probably encounter a lot of that- hence the sensitivity.

I'd like to create another user page... however I am assuming a 3rd strike, as it were, would be an out- as in banned from Wiki. Ergo, how does one create a user page without providing any content about themselves while attracting those with similar interests???

Thanks

David Sabaj-Stahl (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

How do reference sections differ?

I don't understand about the different types of references. How do "References", "Bibliography", "External Links", "Suggested Reading", and "Footnotes" differ?Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Mitzi.humphrey I'm not sure there are any fixed rules, pages tend to start with a References section and others get added as editors feel the need. - see MOS:FOOTERS for the wiki explanation. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • • References are the sources used to write the article.
    • Bibliography are the books used to write the article, the pages can be referred to in the references.
    • External links are weblinks to websites, added because they contain vital information that cannot be added to the article on Misplaced Pages (they are not used to write the article but are extra info).
    • Suggested reading are books that were not used to write the article, but might be of interest to people who read the article.
    • Footnotes are notes by the author to sections of the text. They are textual explanations and not sources.
  • I hope this helps. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mitzi.humphrey. You have brought up one of my favorite discussions. But before I share my thoughts with you I would like to refer you to some helpful pages on Misplaced Pages that will help you understand the 'hows' and the 'whys' of references and citations. I have found these pages to be quite helpful and refer to them all the time:

WP:Citing sources

Help:Referencing for beginners

As an editor here on Misplaced Pages my favorite task is to create content with references for articles. It has been my pleasure to run into a group of people who follow me around as I create content and fix any mistakes that I make in referencing my statements. Believe me, I make a lot of mistakes and if it were not for these other editors a lot of what I do would be fruitless. You can even ask them for help: WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Meta-Wiki

Okay, I have a problem. I decided to create a page on Meta-Wiki. How do I create a link from that page to my main page on Misplaced Pages? Kitty 56 (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Kitty 56, just add meta: in front i.e. ] gives Kitty 56 (on Meta-Wiki) — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oh I misread that - the other way round is add en: so ] gives Kitty 56 (on English WikiPedia) — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Pinniped?

I saw that something recently happened to Pinniped, what was it? Kitty 56 (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that I am asking so many questions, it's just that I am new and this seemed the perfect place to find out the policies. Kitty 56 (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kitty 56
If you click the "History" tab at the top of that article, you can see it was vandalized twice on 4 February, the frst time the vandalism was reverted by ClueBot NG, an automatic programme, the second time by a human editor. If you want to see what was changed in any edit, or any group of edits, click one empty circle in each of the two columns and Compare selected revisions. That seems to have been the only recent activity at that page. - Arjayay (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh! Vandalism! Thank you for clarifying. Kitty 56 (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The bruacratic nature

The bureaucratic nature of Misplaced Pages really bothers me. Frogger48 (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Frogger48 in what way? Although Misplaced Pages has elements of bureaucracy, it is generally considered not a bureaucracy. There is structure, but everything is open to discussion and change. What in particular bothers you? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hell Frogger48, I assume that you mean all the rules and regulations here. They are what keeps this WP together and up to the standard that makes it one of the top websites in the world. Not all people who come here have the same good intentions and kind disposition that you have (unfortunately). I don't know if you have seen how other Wikipedias in other languages are, where the rules are not maintained or enforced in the way they are here. They are not a pretty sight, and those WPs quickly loose credibility and editors willing to contribute. Remember that the English WP is international and because of the rules we somehow manage to keep this thing working in ways that other international organizations can not. Best, w.carter-Talk 13:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Francisco Fort Museum

I created an article for Francisco Fort Museum about a month ago on the Main Page Sandbox but haven't seen it published yet. I did create it first in my sandbox and then to the main. Did I do something wrong? Kholance (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kholance, welcome to the Teahouse. It seems like your draft wasn't added to the AFC review list. I've checked your sandbox and this edit says you submitted your draft for review on 12th December 2014. But I couldn't find it on the list of drafts submitted on that day. When I checked your sandbox I found out that you didn't close a <ref> tag properly. So the draft template didn't appeared properly. Like in HTML you should always close "ref" tags otherwise it will break other templates. Anyway I fixed it for you and now your article is under review .--Chamith (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I got a message about spamming, please help :/

I started my account yesterday with no intention whatsoever about spamming. I had relevant information on my site that pertained to all the information that I linked to. - I received this message earlier today.

"This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Misplaced Pages again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Do not continue to spam links to Cinechew. This is your only warning. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)"

Like I said, I have no intentions of spamming I just want to contribute. Can someone please tell me specifically what I did wrong so it doesn't happen again? Does this mean that I can never link to my site?

Seangonzales (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Seangonzales, welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you should never link to a site you are involved with as you have a conflict of interest. Also, we rarely link to blogs and personal sites unless they're by a recognized expert on the topic. --NeilN 23:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Seangonzales. Your experience mirrors mine exactly. Please don't be discouraged. Perhaps the editor who left you the message was incorrect in assuming that you're intentions were to spam. Editors on Misplaced Pages are supposed to assume good faith on the part of other editors. I find the anti-spam warning to be unduly harsh myself. I don't believe it is the right thing to do to assume that your intentions are always self-promotional. I believe your contribution was viewed as spam because you are directly related to what you're writing about and you do not have a neutral point of view.

So, in a friendly way I like to let you know that contributions made by editors who are personally involved or are supply products and services related to the topic are strongly discouraged and viewed as spam even if that isn't your intention. I have posted a welcome message on your talk page. It will serve you well if you are able to read up on all of the topics that are contained in welcome message. If you do this, you will never be accused of spamming again in all probability. I also remove the warning template from your talk page and left a friendly message for the other editor who issue that warning to you to let them know that this dialogue is happening between you and myself. Happy editing.

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Seangonzales on top of what the others have said, looking at your additions I would say its more than just linking to your own site. It looks like you just added a link to your latest Mark Hamill post as a reference next to any mention of his name. A reference is supposed to be a source for the information preceding it. How is an article "Mark Hamill talks ‘Star Wars 7′ – says its all about the new characters" a reference for any of the places you added it? As such it looks like promotion of your post, and not about adding helpful references to wikikpedia. KylieTastic (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Seangonzales was definitely spamming. We are supposed to be nice to people at the Teahouse but spam is spam no matter what the spammer calls it. The link about an upcoming Starwars Film was even added as a "reference" for Mark Hamill being on the cast of an animated Batman film from 1993. The site was started this month (and its' only the 7th) with Sean Gonzales as the first mentioned author. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys for everything! Like I said, it may have come across that way but I only had good intentions. For example, when I repaired the dead links for Andy Serkis, I couldn't find any links - so I took upon myself to supply it - not knowing about the COI terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seangonzales (talk • contribs) 00:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I took a look at one random instance of Seangonzales adding a reference regarding Mark Hamill. That was added to Joseph Campbell, a professor with a long career at Sarah Lawrence College, and an expert in mythology. There is a passage in Campbell's biography about how his work influenced George Lucas in creating Star Wars, and that later, one of Campbell's books had a photo of Hamill on the cover. All this happened over 35 years ago. One would assume that any reference inserted after Hamill's name in this context would have to do with Campbell, Lucas, Hamill and the book cover. But no. Instead we have a blog post speculating about how big or small Hamill's role will be in the upcoming seventh Star Wars film, to be released in December, 2015. This is spamming, indisputably, and it is difficult to discern "good intentions" unless the editor in question doesn't understand that the function of a reference is to verify the assertions in the preceding content. I hope that the purpose of a reference is clear to the editor now.

There is general consensus that we only use movie review websites that feature the work of paid professional reviewers. Random movie blogs are not considered reliable sources, either for critical opinions or factual assertions about films. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Public domain copyright question

Previously a photo I submitted for William Burke Belknap the younger was removed because it was not considered in the public domain. Since it was a photograph from the front of a Christmas card and I was sent one of those cards, it seems to me that it was in the public domain.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hi User:Mitzi.humphrey, being found in public does not mean 'Public domain' - otherwise you could claim the same for any picture on the internet not behind a login. I would assume if you looked on the back of the card if had an image copyright notice, or statement that the image was under licence. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• See Misplaced Pages:Public domain for all the fun information on the subject ;) KylieTastic (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, KylieTastic, I appreciate your advice. I'm quite sure that neither the card which I have nor any of the places I have seen it reproduced acknowledges either a printer or a photographer. However, I will check again before re-submitting the photo if I decide to try again. Thanks again for responding to my query.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Mitzi.humphrey, Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously, because we allow what's published here to be re-used for any reason, including commercial purposes. So, if we accept a photo saying that it is free of copyright, or freely licensed, we need to be certain that is the case. Just because a photo has been reproduced without a copyright notice does not mean it lacks copyright. Other people reproduce photos improperly all the time, but we don't here on Misplaced Pages. We need hard evidence that the photo is free of copyright or freely licensed. For example, if the photo was first published before 1923, copyright has expired. If it is a work of the U.S. Federal government, it is free of copyright. If it is realeased explicitly under an acceptable Creative Commons license, it is OK to use. But the vast majority of photos you run across must be assumed to be copyrighted. The burden is on the uploaded to verify the status accurately. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Need help uploading profile photo to Info Box for Lewis Craig Humphrey.

I have a family photo for placement in a new entry Lewis Craig Humphrey I created. I captured the image via Bing from my husband's family tree in Ancestry.com and it has been suggested that I upload a photo to the info box for him. I first tried to load it to WikiMedia but was unsuccessful. I seemed to be in some kind of loop of instructional templates. How do I most simply transfer this old photo from my own picture files to the info box? Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Mitzi.humphrey, you can't just take images from most websites as most are copyrighted (or are using images of unknown copyright). Ancestry.com has a clear copyright stamnet on the bottom of the page. So unless the picture had some overriding statement you can not upload to commons. It may be acceptable to upload locally as "Fair use" if no other images are available. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• if you read the Ancestry Terms and Conditions you will find the statement "By agreeing to these Terms and Conditions, you agree to not reuse these images or documents except that you may reuse public domain images so long as you only use small portions of the images or documents for personal use." KylieTastic (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, talk. I think it was the upload locally as "Fair use" method that was recommended, so I will see if I can do that. Thank you for your help, Kylie.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Since Lewis Craig Humphrey died in 1927, the date of the photo is important. Copyright has expired on any photo published before 1923. If it was published later than then, the photo is probably acceptable non-free content, per WP:NFCI #10. Cullen Let's discuss it 09:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing Page Name

Hi,

I am trying to edit the page name and having difficulty in doing so. For my specific example the URL is showing as User:RajLiberal and along with the page name appearing as User:RajLiberal.

I am trying to remove the 'User'part and am having trouble doing so. Any idea how I can achieve this?RajLiberal (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi RajLiberal, welcome to the Teahouse. The short answer is: please don't. You have created a user page which is not an appropriate Misplaced Pages article. Have you read the notes on your talk page, specifically about creating an autobiography? --NeilN 20:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I have created this on behalf of the person on the page strictly as an informative page and not to promote anything on his behalf. I am a first time contributor to Misplaced Pages and if you could guide my in the right direction on how to correct this page, that would be greatly appreciated. RajLiberal (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Your page (now deleted) was promoting the person himself. If you want to create an article, the first step is determining if he meets Misplaced Pages's definition of notable (WP:BIO). Are there newspaper articles that cover him? --NeilN 21:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I will review (WP:BIO) and determine if he meets the definition. And to answer your question, yes, there are newpaper articles that cover him. RajLiberal (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@RajLiberal: when reviewing WP:BIO, note particularly the section WP:POLITICIAN - just being an unelected candidate for political office does not confer WP:Notability, so press cuttings about his candidacy will not be enough. The reason for this guideline is that Misplaced Pages does not wish to be used as an noticeboard for election statements. If Mr Grewal is elected, there will then be no problem about notability. If you are connected with Mr Grewal's campaign, you should also read Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest and the WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. JohnCD (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What is this??

Colliding Tori Fusion Reactor - (CTFR) The legal team has reason to believe that the material that was posted here was a protected trade secret and determined removal was the best choice of action. Please do not hesitate to contact the legal team (legal@wikimedia.org) with any questions or concerns you may have. 2011‑12‑13

Just wanted to know. Kitty 56 (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Kitty 56. Occasionally, someone adds material to Misplaced Pages that is illegal to post publicly. In some cases, the legal team at the WMF (the organization that runs Misplaced Pages) will get involved and delete the material. What you've copied above is just a note informing editors what happened and who to contact if they have questions. --NeilN 21:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Kitty 56 (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

About pending changes protection

I just wanted to ask why pending changes level 2 is never used. It seems like it could be helpful in some cases. Kitty 56 (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kitty 56, welcome to the Teahouse! Like most processes on Misplaced Pages, using pending changes level 2 (PC2) requires the consensus of the community. The last discussion regarding PC2 found there was no consensus for its usage. You can read a summary here and the full discussion here. --NeilN 20:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What does "no consensus" mean? Kitty 56 (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello SandKitty256. "No consensus" means that a discussion took place, based on Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and in this case, there was no agreement to start general use of pending changes level 2. When we can't agree to change things, we leave them the way they were before the discussion. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Creating 1st Wiki page

Hello Teahouse, I have just completed creating my 1st wiki page (deceased artist) which is in my sandbox and pending submission for publishing. Before I do this I have two questions. 1. Is it possible for someone in the Teahouse to check it for me first to get a view on the content and tone to ensure its suitability. 2. I would be grateful for some advice on uploading images as this page would benefit with images as reference material. The two jpeg images are paintings of works by the subject deceased artist and are more than 100 years old and are now outside of copyright and are appropriate for a free content encyclopaedia. As a courtesy I have also obtained permission from the owners of the paintings and they have given me their permission to use them as a digital image on Misplaced Pages. I have read the Wiki Uploading Images wizard page but am still not sure which is the correct copyright listing to use. Thanks for your advice. Toby Clark Wiki (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Toby Clark Wiki, welcome to the Teahouse! I've looked at User:Toby Clark Wiki/sandbox and the content and tone are generally suitable but could use some clean up. For example, we write in prose and try to avoid structures like 1) 2) 3)... A question about sources: You have lots of content - do the inline cites source all that content? For example, does one citation source an entire paragraph? As for images, if they're over 100 years old they are in the public domain. Did you take the digital photos? --NeilN 21:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:NeilN, Thank you for your help. I have updated the draft article in my sandbox to avoid the structures 1) 2) 3) etc. regarding the citations inline, they do refer to the contents of the paragraphs. Thanks for clarifying the images of paintings over 100 years old are in the public domain. The digital images have been taken by the owners of the paintings who have provided permission of use. I am unsure what wiki copyright tag should be used when uploading. I tried to upload a self portrait painting of William Beetham.png. but it was taken down as i had not indicated the correct license status of the image. Many thanks for your help Toby Clark Wiki (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Toby Clark Wiki, and Welcome to the Teahouse. Just to follow up on NeilN's answer above — for copyright purposes, the painting is in the public domain, but the photo of it is not. The photo copyright is owned by the person who took the digital photo, so the process is a bit complicated to have the image approved for posting on Wikimedia Commons. In my experience, it feels like wandering into a conceptual swamp.

Since the owners of the painting seem amenable to allowing their photograph of it to be posted on Wikimedia Commons, follow the instructions here to secure their permission in writing, using an e-mail template from this page. The trickiest part of the process is selecting an appropriate license, from this confusing list. One of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licenses could work for a digital image of a public domain work of art, but you may find another license that suits the needs of the copyright holder. You will need to upload the image using the wizard, and in the "Other" field add this code: {{subst:OP}}, which renders a template telling the volunteers who staff the Open-source Ticket Request System (OTRS) to look for the e-mail sent by the copyright owner, in order to approve the posting. Then finish uploading and add the resulting url for the image into the licensing template, e-mail it to the copyright holder, and ask that it be returned to the OTRS e-mail address directly. OTRS is backlogged, so it may take a while (months) to finalize it, but eventually you should have a positive result. Good luck..— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Grand'mere Eugene, are you sure this is correct? Per Misplaced Pages:Image_use_policy#Free_licenses: "Scans of images alone do not generate new copyrights—they merely inherit the copyright status of the image they are reproducing. For example, a straight-on photograph of the Mona Lisa is ineligible for copyright." --NeilN 15:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thanks for pointing this out, NeilN. I was going by the Wikimedia Commons page on derivative works, with the text, "This photograph of the Venus de Milo is a derivative work. The artist died more than 100 years ago, so the statue is in the public domain—no copyright problems here provided that an appropriate license is provided to cover the photographer's copyright in the photograph (italics mine). So Bridgeman v. Corel seems to differentiate between more restrictive UK law and US law, which differentiates between 2-dimensional public domain art in a frame and 3-dimensional art, where the photographer holds copyright for an image of 3-dimensional public domain art? ...starting to feel lost in the tullie weeds, again, here. But it's good news for Toby Clark Wiki, who can just upload the photo rather than use the circuitous process I described above. I should maybe heed Pope's advice, "A little learning is a dangerous thing; / Drink deep or taste not of the pierian spring: / There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, / And drinking largely sobers us again." — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I need help removing COI banner from Thomas M. Humphrey

There is more info about my difficulty with the entry forThomas M. Humphrey on my talk page and on the View History. My recent additions to his article, for which I had previously but not recently removed a great deal of information which was considered COI. Thomas M. Humphrey is my husband and it was considered against Misplaced Pages rules for me to be a major contributor to his article. For a long time I submitted nothing more to the article, but recently I added some wikilinks to other economists' names already mentioned in the current article and a note about his being a recipient of an Earhart Foundation grant while in grad school at Tulane. The COI warning banner is back, and I want to know how to have it removed. Do I have to delete all my most recent additions, and if I do, will that be sufficient to take away the embarrassing banner?Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mitzi.humphrey. I have looked at the page about Mr. Humphrey, and I do not believe that the main problem with this article is the links that you added just recently. The page seems to be written as a tribute to him rather than as a neutral encyclopedia article, with all the most positive quotes and statements carefully chosen to make him seem as important as possible, and any just ordinary biographical information omitted. Ask yourself this: If all of the sources which (1) were written by Humphrey himself, (2) were written by his friends and colleagues with whom he worked personally, (3)were written by those employing him, and (3) don't mention him at all, were removed from the article, and the content which has been cited back to them, what would be left? A person this influential shouldn't need this; surely there are facts about him which have been written in books, magazines and newspapers that could be used to make a more balanced article. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Anne Delong (talk) You may be thinking that my husband himself has contributed to this article, but that is not true. And most of the usual biographical information (which I had previously submitted) was deleted in 2014 because I was considered a COI writer. The only words which are my husband's are taken from the introduction he wrote in one of his books about influences on his economic philosopy. The references are to sources such as published books, journals, encyclopedias, magazines, etc. for which he wrote or in which his work in the history of economic thought was discussed. Most of the wikilinks in the article are to people living or dead that he has known professionally or with whom he has co-authored works in the field of economics. The article is about as objective in its perspective as any entry could be. He has written much, much more than is indicated in the Misplaced Pages article--at least over 100 published articles. So, my question remains about how to remove the COI banner.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Mitzi.humphrey, I was not suggesting that your husband wrote the text of the article, although obviously the quotes are written by him. I was talking about the sources. Misplaced Pages articles are not supposed to be sourced to material written by the subject, or people he knows. Proper sourcing would instead be published works such as books or journal articles of other economists who aren't co-workers and which discuss him and his work; news or magazine reports of his activities written by journalists; reviews of his books such as this one which describe his research and accomplishments, etc. The fact that this article appears neutral to you is a very good example of why it's not recommended that editors write about subjects with which they are emotionally (or financially in the case of companies) connected. You ask how the COI banner can be removed; I'm afraid that it will have to stay until another editor has rewritten the article in the form of a factual biography, and sourced it to published works of writers who are not closely connected to him. I suggest that you enlist the help of editors who are familiar with economics topics by posting a note on WT:WikiProject Economics.—Anne Delong (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

PS- It seems that while I was writing this two editors have started improving the article already.... —Anne Delong (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I took your advice and posted a request for contributions at WT:WikiProject Economics. I like the book review link you suggested above (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Southern-Economic-Journal/17021382.html), but I'll have to wait for someone else to add it. Do you think it should be quoted from directly or listed just as a footnote? By the way, I don't understand about the different types of references. How do "References", "Bibliography", "External Links", "Suggested Reading", and "Footnotes" differ? I see them all used in Misplaced Pages.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Great questions, Mitzi.humphrey. Quotations should be kept to a minimum on Misplaced Pages. In most cases an editor should summarize in their own words what the source says. Occasionally someone has said something iconic, so that their exact words are widely discussed, (such as MacArthur's "I shall return") and should be quoted.

• "References" is a general term, and the text of citations appears in that section, as well as general references which could be used as citations but haven't been yet.
• "Bibliography" refers to the list of books, articles, etc., written or edited by the subject - if the person is a very prolific author, this is often "Selected bibliography" instead. (These are not references, but may be in the article because they are interesting information).
• "External links" is a section at the bottom of the article where a few relevant web links can be added - maybe the subject's web site, or an organization for which he's known, etc.
• "Footnotes" is occasionally used instead of the word "References" if the citations includes explanatory notes as well as source citations. I personally avoid these; they make the article hard to read and most important terms that need explaining should be wikilinks to another article instead.
• "Suggested Reading" - This would have a list of books that the creator of the page thinks the reader would find interesting, but this is problematic, since Misplaced Pages can't promote anything, and I would avoid including that section, to avoid arguments about what should be in it.
• You didn't mention "See Also", a section which has a list of other Misplaced Pages articles which are closely related, but aren't already linked in the article. For example, and article about "Pepperone pizza" might list "Mushroom pizza" (okay, silly example, but you get the idea). I hope this is clear. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Constructive Feedback Welcome

Hi there, An article I hoped to post was declined and I was hoping for some critical feedback to help me improve it. I've asked a few writer friends for advice, and have a few edits at my fingertips, but I wanted to get a Wiki-pro's opinion before resubmitting. Thanks so much! I'm loving the Teahouse. :) LitaOstar (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could tell us which article? Is it Draft:Nexmo by any chance? - Arjayay (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there Arjayay, it is Draft:Nexmo indeed. Thank you. :) LitaOstar (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings LitaOstar], and welcome to the Teahouse. I have taken a look at your draft and have found quite a few problems with it that will prevent it from being added to Misplaced Pages in its present form. Referencing PRNewswire urls is the same as referencing your company's own press releases. A company's press release, is not really considered a neutral source of information. Your other references into the authored and published by your company also. There are many small computer and software applications that are not notable according to Misplaced Pages guidelines and it appears to me that this is the case in your article. It may be difficult to rewrite this article without it appearing to be promotional.

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Need Syntax Help

Hello Again, Let me elaborate my question. While working on the Bidar page, I have found that there is a section titled Ghulam Yazdani's contribution to Bidar which do not belong to the page. I have also found out that there exists another page on wikipedia titled Ghulam Yazdani. I want to propose a merger for which I am stuck with syntax. I am aware of the syntax {{merge from|article name|date=February 2015}} which would be applicable for entire page. My question is - How to add only the section of a page for merger. What is the syntax for section merging? Anand2202 (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anand2202:, the template you want is {{Move portions from}}. Nthep (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks @Nthep: Much appreciated! :) Anand2202 (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

When you publish to the sandbox is it live for all to see?

Hello,

I recently had a play with my sandbox to get a good idea of how it all works before creating my first page. I got the page how I'd like it and hit publish. As all looked good I decided to create the real page only to receive an automated message from CorenSearchBot saying the page appears to include material copied directly from my sandbox...

I quickly deleted the contents of my sandbox and left a message in the Talk section. Oops!

So does this mean anyone can read my sandbox? Apologies if this question has been asked before. Adaircameron (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Adaircameron:, there are no hidden pages on Misplaced Pages. Any page is visible to anyone, it's just a question of finding some of them. So although your sandbox is in your userspace, anyone can view it (although the convention is that people won't edit it unless it is a) with permission or b) there is somthing on it that it contrary to Misplaced Pages policies e.g. it's an attack page). CorenSearchBot is very good at what it does but it can through up false positives as it did here, that's why it only tags pages as suspected copies and doesn't delete them. Bizarrely in this case, the tag was not by comparing your article in draft userspace directly with your sandbox but because it picked up your sandbox at a Mirror site. Nthep (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nthep thanks for your response. That's much appreciated. So in this case there shouldn't be anything to worry about? Be great to see my first contribution to Misplaced Pages go live in the near future. Adaircameron (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about over the tagging. I dodn't really read the article so I can't comment on whether that is acceptable or not. Nthep (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Adaircameron. It is a good question that you have asked and it does come up quite a bit. But since the same question comes up, it's always good to have it readily visible to new editors who may not be aware of this issue. Not everyone searches the archives to find a possible answer to their current question. So you have done everyone a favor.

Whenever this question comes up, I suggest that you create your drafts off of Misplaced Pages on your own computer to maintain your privacy and until you're ready for anyone on the planet to see your draft. I enjoy creating content, but don't like the idea of letting other editors seeing what I have created until I believe that it is ready for peer review. When I want to see how my potential article will look on Misplaced Pages, I do a quick copy and paste from my word processor of my article into my sandbox, press the preview button, and take a look. Since I have not saved the page into my sandbox it is not visible to editors although I suppose there is a way that someone with the knowledge and expertise could see the preview if they so desired. Once I am happy with the preview of my new article I delete it from my sandbox and put it back into my word processor.

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

trying to post a article

Ryanlee78creativebugs (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC) i keep getting issue trying to post an article. it said self promote.

can anyone help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ryanlee78creativebugs/sandbox

Ryanlee78creativebugs (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ryanlee78creativebugs:, a look at the article suggests to me that the problem is the tone that you have used. Let me take just one paragraph;

They offer data and voice services to Government, Enterprises, SMEs and SMIs. As the broadband solutions provider, REDtone is the only service provider in the industry with a unique suite of last-mile technologies such as Wireless Point-To-Point, Metro E, Fibre, Satellite, LTE (4G), ADSL, WiMAX and Microwave. This enables us to provide infrastructure integration expertise and broadband-on-demand. REDtone is the No.1 Discounted Call Service Provider in Malaysia. They boast an impressive track record and were awarded the “Alternative Service Provider of the Year” by Frost & Sullivan in 2005, 2007 and 2009. Designed for business customers, our discounted call services offer savings of up to 90%.

— User:Ryanlee78creativebugs/sandbox

In a short paragraph there are two uses of us/our which suggests that the whole section is lifted from a company brochure or press release. Then every other sentence makes a claim to be number #1 or unique without any independent, reliable sources to support what is written. Prove they are the only service provider supplying those technologies? Who says they have an impressive track record? Who has verified that that they ofer call savings of up to 90%? Find independent sources to back up these claims and then they may have a place in the article but not as it currently stands. I've singled out one paragraph but I have to say the rest of the article is the same and the whole draft currently does nothing but act as a sales brochure for the company. Nthep (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ryanlee78creativebugs: I have placed a box at top of User:Ryanlee78creativebugs/sandbox with a button to submit it for review. However, the current version is far too promotional. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Misspellings

Hello,

I am new to Misplaced Pages and have already ameneded a few spelling mistakes, in addition to correcting some information on an article.

Is there any way to know how many corrections I have made without keeping my own records?

Secondly, how do I know if information I changed on an article has been accepted?

Thanks,

Woodstockboy22Woodstockboy22 (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey there, Woodstockboy22, First & foremost, I am also new here (I mean I am not a Tea House host) so I am not sure if Technically I have the right or authority of answering your question. But I am compelled to do so! :) Well, on the top-right corner of your page you can see PREFERENCES where under User Profile you have the Number of Edits. There's also the CONTRIBUTIONS option (near the LOG OUT button) which maintains a list & details of your activity. This satisfies your first question, I suppose.

Regarding your second question, @Woodstockboy22:, changes made to articles can be tracked under VIEW HISTORY option (along side the EDIT) on the page. Whenever you edit or change some info on a article, add it to your watchlist. You will be updated automatically.

Happy editing! :) Anand2202 (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Woodstockboy22. In general your corrections are acceptable, but you need to be a little more careful. In one case the spelling in the reference in the article was what the source used, and this was highlighted by the inclusion of "(sic)" and by a note in the reference to highlight the spelling. In your most recent edit you changed from the correct spelling to an incorrect spelling. I have therefore reverted both of those edits. Thanks for your efforts, but please be a little more careful. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Uncertain of an acceptable approach

I asked this question a few days back- but it may have been lost in the abyss, as I had not yet created a user page. My apologies if someone answered, but I received nothing at that time. Here is my apparent dilemma: I serve as president of the Edwin James Society. We are active in a number of areas- all science-related. We spend tremendous amounts of energy on research, and in the past 5 or so years, have achieved some nifty breakthroughs. Last week I attempted to enter some of that info to existing articles that were very much connected- e.g. biodiversity, biogeography, bio-invasion. Apparently those edits were quickly deleted due to a perceived conflict of interest- i.e., I am the one driving the train of these discoveries.

While a portion of our company is for profit- i.e., agricultural operations & scientific consulting; our research & publishing is not-for-profit. While retain all copyrights, our work is published and available for consumption- free of any charge. Thus I was not spamming or profiteering, but it seems I gave that impression last week. Our desire is to communicate our scholarly achievements to a broader audience, as they appear to have significant applications. Wiki seems like a good place for this. So my questions are (sorry for the long way getting here):

1) How do we appropriately communicate there is no conflict of interest &

2) Would it be better to create & submit a new article encapsulating these discoveries, or should I try top add info to existing articles?

Thanks David Sabaj-Stahl (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, David Sabaj-Stahl. The first thing that you should do is completely transform your user page, which is currently written as an unreferenced faux encyclopedia article. Your user page should be about you as a Misplaced Pages editor and should not promote any of your outside interests. It should, however, include a clear statement disclosing your conflict of interest. Brief, non-promotional biographical information is permitted, but nothing that simulates an encyclopedia article.

Next, please be aware that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia which summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. It is not a place to publicize new research. So, it is inappropriate for you to add your research to the article on Biodiversity, for example, unless independent reliable sources unconnected with your organization discuss that research. Because of your clear conflict of interest, you should not add any such material to such articles yourself, but instead, you should propose changes, along with references, on the article's talk page.

So, please do not try to claim that that there is no conflict of interest in this case, because there certainly is. Instead, disclose it openly, and please comply with our expectations about how editors with conflicts of interest should behave.

Copyrighted material can be quoted briefly here, as long as it is a reliable source, and is cited. But our policies forbid extensive use of copyrighted sources, even if given away for free, unless that material is freely and openly available for reuse for any purpose under an acceptable Creative Commons license. Attribution is the only accepted limitation. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to make it clear (and add to Cullen's excellent post): conflict of interest and promotional writing can occur in non-profit and academic circles as well as commercial enterprises. A lot of people get stuck with this issue. LouiseS1979 07:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Help with article "Hookworm"

I don't think the article "Hookworm" should be mostly about humans.Dogs are only mentioned once, and that isn't right for me.Qqwe2 (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Qqwe2. Our article Hookworm is primarily about the three species of such worms which infect about 500 million people worldwide, mostly in less-developed tropical countries. The lead section of the article mentions and links to other species which infect dogs and cats. The most common species in dogs is Ancylostoma caninum, and you will see that it is a major, well developed article. Cullen Let's discuss it 01:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Qqwe2: If you think the article is unduly focused on the hookworks that infect humans, I'd recommend starting a discussion at Talk:Hookworm. Good luck! Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Nominating an article for DYK

Hi. I recently created this account, having edited for a while with various IP addresses. I created the article Inclusive Church, which is, I think, eligible to go on the "did you know?" section of the Main Page. Apparently new users can't nominate articles, so they have to ask someone else to do it. I did so here, but haven't received a reply. Should I just go ahead and nominate it myself, or am I missing something?

Thanks for your help, and thanks for this page.

Relentlessly (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Relentlessly: Hi Relentlessly. Just so you know you will become autoconfirmed on February 7, 2015 at 19:32 (UTC), but your concern about passing that threshold is not germane, as nominating an article for DYK does not involved any autoconfirmation-restricted acts. DYK nominations are not restricted from new users at all. (I'm curious about what made you think they were.) You can go ahead right now and create the nomination. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks for your reply. The DYK project page suggests you do need to be autoconfirmed: "Any autoconfirmed registered user may nominate a DYK suggestion" from here. But I'll go ahead and do it, with your imprimatur! Relentlessly (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Relentlessly: Aha. That error crept in when the instructions were placed into a header (Template talk:Did you know/Header), which was recently created. I first tested it to make sure I was correct (noting also that T:TDYK is not semi-protected which would then require an autoconfirmed user to edit the list of nominations) and then fixed it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION Error. Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem.

Is anyone else getting 503 errors that say something like the following, or is it just me?

WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION Error Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes. Error: 503, Service Unavailable at Thu, 05 Feb 2015 17:18:35 GMT

Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That was a temporary issue with the Wikimedia servers. It's been fixed now. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, at that moment Misplaced Pages was down to everyone. Wikimedia Foundation tweeted that it was due to a network problem. I don't think you are facing that issue anymore as you have accessed Teahouse, which means you can also access other Misplaced Pages articles.--Chamith (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

For further information, this is the summary of the site outage as published by Wikimedia Foundation.---Chamith (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages is only highly useful if the internet works. If something, (say, the network fails), Misplaced Pages isn't really helpful. This is too bad, there should be a way for Misplaced Pages to be useful outside of the net. Frogger48 (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Creating a Formal Tone

Hi there,

My article 'Pan Intercultural Arts' was not accepted due to a lack of formal tone expected of an encyclopaedia article. There are a number of independent, reliable and published sources cited, so I'm looking for some clarity/guidance in how to go about developing the article's formal tone.

Many thanks for your help, I look forward to hearing from you!

Bruns crt (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Bruns crt hello and welcome to The Teahouse. The most obvious problems I can see are that the main section quotes from sources when it would probably be better to present the information in your own words, and that the other section is structured like a company web site (and has some of the same promotional-looking wording such as "engender" and "empower") when it would look better as paragraphs.

It would be better to define exactly what the various terms mean for those who know nothing about the organisation, and to explain how the organisation does those activities that are described, using the independent sources of course.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, I will re-work the page with you recommendations Bruns crt (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarification about sockpuppet/meatpuppet policy

Hi, I have seen the following two comments made recently by two different admins on their respective talk pages:

Acting on behalf of a banned editor is not, in and of itself, in violation of any policy currently written.

We do not draw a distinction between use of multiple accounts and multiple editors pursuing an identical agenda in collusion.

Could someone please reconcile these views for me? I legitimately don't understand what's going on here. How is it that editors who "pursue an identical agenda" are assumed to be "colluding" (how could it be evidenced?) and this is not allowed when they're all "live" editors, but edits made "on behalf of" a banned editor (i.e., pursuing the same "agenda") are okay? If someone has explicitly arranged to make edits "on behalf of" the banned editor, how is that not "collusion", but a coincidence of views of new editors somehow is? 70.24.6.142 (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I normally don't answer questions at the teahouse, but I think I could help out. When the policy says "edits pursuing an identical agenda in collusion", it's not referring to a coincidence of views of new editors as you say, but rather when it says editors working collusion it refers to a group of people who organize to push an agenda. Pishcal — ♣ 19:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Can I get a review for checks and balances before I resubmit my draft

I created my first page https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Exilant_Technologies , and Anup helped to identify the issues while declining the submission. He advised to seek help from Teahouse team before I resubmit to avoid the obvious reject that I risk , being new to Misplaced Pages. Hence requesting the senior members to spend some time and help me out. Devopam (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Devopam. I'm afraid what I have to say is going to be a little disappointing.

Firstly, remember Misplaced Pages isn't a business directory; it's an encyclopaedia. Your article does read like you are trying to present the company to clients rather than give us an idea of what makes it important in its field. Lack of notability is a problem that is very hard to overcome; it means you need to produce independent, third party reliable sources to qualify for an entry here. This is, as it sounds, difficult to assert if few or no such sources exist. News coverage is simply stuff like , which documents something the company has done, but doesn't discuss the impact of the sponsorship in enough detail to prove this is anything other than routine coverage, which many companies gain in some form or other, as are the links to PRWeb, which is simply a company announcement, rather than an independent article. This might be signs of the company gaining a presence in its marketplace, and if it carries on like that, then maybe you could put together something in a while.

I think one of the difficulties is that you are assuming that data from e.g. Companies House constitutes a source. Yes, you're right, it proves you exist and what happened within the company, and what certificates they hold, but it's not the sort of sourcing we need to fully prove notability.

Also, if you are affiliated with Exilant, then it's also difficult to get the right perspective needed. Companies sometimes ask an employee to write a Misplaced Pages article, but that's really at odds with our encyclopaedic goal. Having a conflict of interest means that you shouldn't really be writing an article on the subject; if you have the sources, you might request assistance with drafting, but if the sources simply don't exist, you can't really meet the notability guidelines, and as such can't really have the article in Misplaced Pages until the company is significant enough to have generated those sources.

When you first joined Misplaced Pages, someone left a lot of links on your talk page. It might be an idea to read those pages thoroughly (particularly the WP:CORP and WP:COI guidelines I linked earlier, so you get a better idea of what writing a Misplaced Pages article entails. LouiseS1979 10:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response and I don't mind the mistakes being pointed out else I won't learn in the first place. Not trying to sound critical , but I tried to model the page after viewing more than a dozen similar companies who have very similar structure and content; I fear few of them have even lesser details actually and floating freely since a while. Another point was about the mention of conflict of interest. Nah, I haven't been asked/paid by anyone to create this article - I did because I thought I have good amount of information that I can leverage for my first article. I tried to collect as much of information that I could gather over free internet , and then cite them with full clarity (including mention of prweb). Can someone actually spend some time to help me understand / set the neutral tone here for which I shall be obliged. Devopam (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not a teahouse host, but if by any chance you have a connection with the Devopam who works for Exilant, you might still have a COI. See https://in.linkedin.com/in/devopam. SovalValtos (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Devopam I'm not a host either and don't usually mention that, but I saw the need to add further information. When you say you saw similar articles that means other stuff exists but that only means we haven't gotten around to dealing with those articles yet. Instead of pointing to articles of lesser quality, we should be trying to raise the quality of all articles and, if another company is not notable, its article might be headed for deletion.

Also, you were told PRWeb wasn't acceptable as a source at this point. Once notability is clear I'm sure those sources can be used. I've used them myself not knowing I wasn't supposed to, but hopefully that's not a problem since most of those articles were already well-established.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Vchimpanzee. I had a look at the PRWeb source - it's a company announcement basically from a press release. It's not really a reliable source since it's in the company's own voice. LouiseS1979 07:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

dear SovalValtos , I acknowledge I am the same person you referred above, thanks for digging me out on the internet. My intent is to create article around a subject matter I am familiar with and hence I chose to write likewise. I respect the rules and guidelines of Misplaced Pages but I guess you will appreciate that I am actively editing for the first time, so ignorant about a lot many aspect I may not be expected. COI or not, I want my first article to be a good one , in terms of content and compliance. That was the intent to come and seek help from Teahouse as suggested by the reviewer who rejected my initial draft and told me why so. All I request is some good template, reference articles and little time from veterans to help me avoid such pitfalls. hi Vchimpanzee , thank you for pointing out the right issues/challenges that I am facing. I agree that referring something incorrect doesn't make my pov correct. May I request links to some good articles around Software Companies that I can use as reference to correct the problems in my draft. Apologies for the long note...Devopam (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Devopam. Try WikiProject Business and WikiProject Computing and have a look at their list of Good Articles (GAs) and Featured Articles (FAs). However, if you are connected with Exilant, you need to thoroughly read up on the neutral point of view guidelines as I suggested (and it's hard to be neutral about something with which you have this conflict of interest, even if you weren't directly instructed to write about the company). Try contributing to other articles first before trying to create an article - this is probably the best way to learn how to write good articles in accordance with policy. Unfortunately, scrutiny of new articles is very intense, and the reviewers, myself included, will judge them on their merits and not in comparison to other articles.

What I'd do now is leave Exilant alone for the moment because of the COI concerns, and try to find something else to contribute. LouiseS1979 07:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Which "Operating system" section type should mobile devices use?

Currently, there are 2 "clear" "Operating system" section types, used for some recent Android devices.

They are (e.g.: HTC One (M8)):

Original: Android 4.4.2 "KitKat"
Current: Android 5.0.1 "Lollipop"

and (e.g.: Samsung Galaxy S5):

Android 4.4.2 "KitKat"
Current: Android 5.0 "Lollipop"

Which one should be used? --Diblidabliduu (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Diblidabliduu: This isn't the place to ask that question. This is the teahouse talk page. The teahouse is where editors ask questions related to editing Misplaced Pages. This page is the wp:talk page for the teahouse, where hosts discuss issues related to how we can assist editors asking questions in the actual tea house. I think what you want is this page: Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Computing The reference desk is similar to a reference desk in a library where you can go and ask general questions. It is divided up into various sections based on the kind of question. I think the computing ref desk that I linked to above is the most appropriate place to aks your question. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: Wasn't the OP was asking about how the "| os" parameter in {{Infobox mobile phone}} ought to be completed? In which case the format as used in Template:Infobox mobile phone#Examples would seem a reasonable one to follow. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, thanks for correcting. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me if my article draft sounds objective?

Do you have any tips or edit suggestions for my draft of RealSelf? This is my first time trying to submit an article! What do you think of my sources? Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks!RealSimone (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Realsimone (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Realsimone. First of all, thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest on your user page. That is the ethical thing to do, and you have coomplied with Misplaced Pages's Terms of Service by doing so.

When you ask about the draft being "objective", what you probably meant was whether it was written from the neutral point of view. When I read your draft, I saw no major problems with NPOV. Instead, I wondered about notability. I want to see clearly presented references that show notability of the company. Your references are poorly formatted, and are not inline references. Please read Referencing for beginners for how to improve them. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

How do I enter/ link copyright information to an uploaded jpg?

I have inherited the copyright from a book published by my late father. I have uploaded images from this book, but cannot figure out how to prove this/ enter or link this to the jpg in question.

Thanks!Jafleckiii (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jafleckiii. Thank you for being willing to share copyrighted materials that you inherited from your father. That is a fitting tribute to both of you. Since this is a somewhat unusual copyright donation, I recommend that you contact OTRS. They are a trusted team of Wikimedia volunteers who handle a variety of special matters involving privacy, legality and foundation policy. They communicate mostly by email. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you submit your sandbox for review

How do you submit your sandbox for review so that the page, if it is good enough, can be made into a new page? Dentdark (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. When your draft is ready for review you can submit it by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. Before you do that, however, you need to read the links in the welcome message on your user talk page, and particularly WP:Your first article. You need to understand the need to demonstrate notability by references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyrighted work

Hi, I've had my first article (a biography) refused as it contains "copyrighted work". However, for the life of me I cant see how it does? Any tips appreciatedTonyBrowne174 (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The deletion log for the draft which was deleted tells you which web page the copyright violation was from. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Article Review

Hey Teahouse, I was wandering whether someone (or more) could look at the article I'm creating in my sandbox. I'd appreciate the feedback of other editors. Thanks, Skate Shady - talk to me 15:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's the link, ] Skate Shady - talk to me 16:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Skate Shady your article has enough sources to support it but it lacks content. Almost every section contains one paragraph only. I think you should seek feedback after adding more content to the article or when you are about to submit it. That way we can give it a quick review and help you out. For now I'll fill those bare references for you. Cheers!-Chamith (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your attempted link above is broken. You were probably trying to link to User:Skate Shady/sandbox. You'll find information about linking at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Linking. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

"Own work"

On Commons, user Bioasia2013 has uploaded an image of N. T. Rama Rao claiming it to be his own work. This is heavily unlikely to be his own, as the photo looks like it was taken in the 60's (when the user was not born) and he has not provided a proper source for it. Currently, the user is blocked as a sockpuppet of some other user, and is there any way to tag the image for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailash29792 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion here. Next time, just go to the image on Commons, and click "Nominate for deletion", last item on the right toolbar. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Kinfolk rewrite: what next?

I've substantially rewritten and reorganised the Kinfolk (magazine) article to make it appear less like an advertisement. Is there a process for getting the article re-evaluated and the banner taken down, or is this just something that happens automatically over time? VagrantDarter (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, VagrantDarter. There's nothing automatic about tags like that: they're placed, and removed, by people when they think it is appropriate. You could have removed it yourself (though it's not a bad idea to ask somebody else to have a look). I've removed it - but I've added another tag, because there are several pieces of information in the article which are unsourced, so I've added {{ref-improve}}. I've also edited the link above, so that it goes straight to the article, rather than to a disambiguation page.--ColinFine (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Notability of Juan Eduardo Castro dos Santos

I need help to improve the issue of notability about the article Juan Eduardo Castro dos Santos. I know that Castro belongs to the "World Head of Family Sokeship Council" , but this council does not admit every martial artist to be a member. They examine thoroughly every application before they accept someone. That is the best proof of notability I can come up with. The rest of the proofs are scanned copies of certificates exposed in the page , since these are documents that predates Internet era. If any editor is so kind to help or give me a hint I'll appreciate it very much. Palebizakis (talk) Palebizakis (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Palebizakis. I'm afraid you misunderstand the special meaning that Misplaced Pages has for the word "notable". It doesn't mean "important" or "famous" or even "recognised". It means that several people unconnected with the subject have chosen to write about the subject in reliable publications (such as books from reputable publishers, or major newspapers). Unpublished material such as certificates are incapable of contributing to notability in Misplaced Pages's sense. (The reason we insist upon notability in this sense is, I believe, that an article should be based almost entirely on what reliable independent sources have said about a subject. If there are no such sources, then there is no material which can go into the article!). --ColinFine (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox deletion

First of all, thank you for this magnificent endeavor that is Misplaced Pages! Two questions:

I began working in draft mode, and my work (considerable hours, I must say) was deleted because I inadvertently did not follow some of the rules;

...which brings me to my second question:

1) Is my sandbox also at risk of being deleted? ( I copy my code offline, nevertheless, to be on the safe side) 2) What might i expect to happen when I click on "Submit your draft for review"; will I have a chance to correct errors in Wiki protocol?

Mlaucke (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Michael. As a rule, material in Draft: space or a sandbox will not be deleted (or, usually, even edited) by others unless it is an urgent problem: generally only a copyright violation or a personal attack. Having said this, I suggest you take the advice that Theroadislong has put on your talk page, and stop trying to use Misplaced Pages for promotional purposes. --ColinFine (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your account User:Mlaucke has not edited any deleted pages. Your only edits are to User:Mlaucke/sandbox, Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Guests/Right column and this page. If you have worked on another page then it must have been with another account or logged out or you never saved it. You can continue to work on a page after submitting it. If it's declined then you usually get a chance to improve and resubmit it. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

African New Zealanders

I would like to make a page about African New Zealand history - like the African Australian page. There is only a South African New Zealand page and this is misleading as it implies that Africans were not present BEFORE South Africans came there. I want to do this because I am a NZ born African person and have lived with this misrepresentation all my life. Can you show me how to do this?Liyah66 (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Having a page on South African New Zealanders does not mean that there were no other Africans. It just means that that particular group is notable enough to warrant its own page. Arfæst! 13:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Liyah66. I suggest you read your first article, and then, if you decide to go ahead, use the article wizard to create a draft that you can work on without being interrupted.

The thing to remember, especially in a general article like this, is that Misplaced Pages does not accept original research. Every single statement in the article, and every single discussion, judgment, evaluation, or conclusion in the article, needs to be individually cited to a published reliable source (such as a book from a reputable publisher, or a major newspaper). The article may say that Book 1 claims xxx while Book 2 argues that yyy, but it must not make any attempt to reconcile these two (or explain the difference, or to make a judgment between them) - unless that argument is itself cited to another reliable source.

Since you say you are coming to correct a misrepresentation, do be careful that you do not omit views different from your own. I have no idea whether this subject is controversial or not; but if there is controversy about it, a Misplaced Pages article should summarise all views in reliable sources, not just the ones that you agree with.

Good luck! --ColinFine (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Linking images from different Wiki's

On the article Mayabazar, I would like to use an image from its Telugu page. Rather than upload the file again for use here, is it possible to link files from another Wiki over here? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Kailash29792: All the different language versions of Misplaced Pages are able to use the freely licensed images from the Wikimedia Commons, a central image repository for all Wikimedia projects. The image you describe, however, is a non-free image that is used at the Telugu Misplaced Pages under fair use. Because each version of Misplaced Pages has its own policies on fair use images, they have to be uploaded to each respective project in order to be used. So, short answer, yep; you'll have to go ahead and upload that image here, as long as it meets our own requirements for non-free pictures. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

List of compilers question

In the list of compilers page, it says the page is intended to list all current compilers. I presume you don't want just any old thing added here, but still I have written a current compiler that is production quality, is it fair to add it to this page? If so is it fair to write another page about the history and design of the compiler as well? Or does the fact it hasn't gotten a lot of attention make it too unnotable even if it does get listed on the compilers page? LADSoft (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, LADSoft. According to our Manual of Style regarding lists: "all individual items on the list must follow Misplaced Pages's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well."

The talk page for List of compilers has a comment going all the way back to 2008 that claims that most computer science students who take a compiler class will write a compiler. If that is even roughly true, then I feel comfortable in saying that we do not want a list of every single compiler written by every single computer science compiler student on the face of the Earth. So, what separates a compiler worthy of inclusion on the list from the bug-ridden compiler written by a student in 1978, who dropped out of computer studies after receiving a D for that assignment? We don't include original research, which means that reliable sources other than the author must have commented on the compiler. And the content must be verifiable, which means that those sources were published and can be read by anyone interested in verifying the accuracy of the list entry. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I will let it be then... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.29.55.135 (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio-tagging bots

It's happened occasionally that while doing New Pages Patrol, I run across copyvios that have already been tagged by CorenSearchBot. Is there any point in tagging them with {{db-g12}} as well, or is that not nessecary? --Jakob (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jakec: Yes, definitely! The bot simply alerts to a possible copyright violation, and doesn't tag the page for speedy deletion. You should first check to make sure the page is actually a copyright violation (it's rare, but false positives do happen; there's also cases where the copied content is freely licensed or in the public domain, in which the copied content should be appropriately attributed to avoid plagiarism). If you confirm that it's a copyright violation, then you should tag it under G12. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that! --Jakob (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Need clarification of how to demonstrate "notability" of subject

My article on Silent Spring Institute (www.silentspring.org) was not accepted because the editor felt that the “submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. I was advised to “improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia” by adding “citations to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.”

I cited a number of peer-reviewed articles written by Silent Spring scientists; how can those be “entirely independent of the subject”? I also cited reports on Silent Spring’s work published in respected journals, including "Environmental Health Perspectives" and "Environmental Science and Technology"; why are these not considered “secondary reliable sources”? Furthermore, I included the fact that Harvard University considered Silent Spring notable important enough to acquire and catalogue its papers. I am unclear why the submission was not accepted.

65.96.211.80 (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. First off, please remember to sign in. Your IP address may change, but if you are signed in we can communicate with you on your personal talk page. Now for your question. Notability is the standard for inclusion on Misplaced Pages. Notability is "multiple reliable secondary sources discussing the subject in detail". It has nothing to do with what the organization has published. It has everything to do with what has been published about the organization. Companies and organizations have another notability hurdle. The sources have to show that the organization has been made note of in a wide geographic area. In other words, if all the sources are local to metro Boston, notability has not been shown. As an aside, I would have declined the draft as promotional. It reads more like a press release than an encyclopedia article. John from Idegon (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, unknown person. Welcome to the Teahouse, where we sometimes have different opinions. For example, I would submit that The Cape Cod Times is certainly a WP:Reliable source and could be used to attest to the organization's WP:Notability. If this is all you have right now, you could mark your submission as a WP: Stub. I see your draft is at Draft:Silent_Spring_Institute. I will take a look at it and try to help you. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I was WP:Bold and prepared a new article, using some of your information, which I posted at Silent Spring Institute. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Shown redirect page, expecting disambiguation page

Hello, for a first try i'd like to create a page on the heavy metal band Visigoth but when I type "visigoth" in the search bar, I am taken to the visigoths page. I don't feel very comfortable trying to edit the redirection page and I am not sure if I should either. What to do? Thanks. --Kingrevenant (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kingrevenantt. Assuming that the band is notable, the article should be called Visigoth (band), and disambiguation can be taken care of with notes at the top of each article. Cullen Let's discuss it 21:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

But my suggestion would be, don't worry about the title, Kingrevenant: use the WP:Article wizard to develop your article in Draft: space. When you eventually submit it for review, the accepting reviewer will move it to the proper title in main space. --ColinFine (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks cullen and colinfine I'll use the Wizard! Kingrevenant (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Word of the Day

Is it possible to have the Word of the Day displayed on my user page? (Just like the Picture of the Day)Rocketmaniac2 (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Rocketmaniac2 hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I moved your question to the top of the page for better visibility. Hopefully someone who knows the answer will be able to see it here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rocketmaniac2: Misplaced Pages does not have a feature called Word of the Day. Are you thinking of wiktionary:Wiktionary:Word of the day? Wiktionary is a dictionary and one of our sister sites. Pages cannot be transcluded on other wikis so you cannot display Wiktionary's Word of the day on your Misplaced Pages userpage. You can display it on your Wiktionary user page if you create one at wiktionary:User:Rocketmaniac2 and write {{Word of the day}} there. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

LOL, that's why even trying 15-20 different ways of spelling everything I failed. Thanks for your info. Rocketmaniac2 (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Accidental account

I accidentally added an account, SandKitty356. Could an admin please delete it? Thank you. Kitty 56 (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kitty 56, and welcome to the teahouse. We can't delete accounts. But it doesn't matter much; just abandon the account and don't use it. We're not too fuzzed with the littering of unused accounts, no harm done. Martijn Hoekstra (talk)

Thank you so much. Kitty 56 (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for review : Draft:Ed DeCosta

Hi guys.

My article was recently declined but was given very valuable feedback by the admin who reviewed it. I took his pointers by heart and made every effort to improve the manner of writing, formatting, references and content of the article. He was very supportive and even researched for citations to help me out.

I wanted to get as much feedback as I can so I can improve the article more and get it approved as I truly believe that the subject should be on wiki. I was hoping to request for your time to review the changes I have made and provide feedback on improvement. I understand you are busy with a handful of edits but I am humbly requesting for a hand. Thank you so much Pmanz2014 (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pmanz2014: This article still relies much too heavily on sources connected to DeCosta, and several of the other remaining sources are unreliable blogs. I would recommend massively paring back the article (to 25% of its current length or so), removing the vast majority of references and keeping only the best ones (like the Kirkus review), and then we can see what remains. Right now the piece looks like promotion and I have significant doubts about the notability of the article subject. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have previously given advice on this draft, and I agree with Calliopejen1. Cullen Let's discuss it 22:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Improving an article

https://en.wikipedia.org/Hong_Seong-chan is a recently created page. And i wan't someone to help me enriching it. So how could I ask somebody to contribute to it? aGastya 18:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgastyaC (talk • contribs)

AgastyaC hello and welcome to The Teahouse. The topic above (or possibly below when this is archived) is similar. Go to WP:BLP/N.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Page was not approved, need to improve referencing.

Hi,

I submitted a page, and was told that the article was nearly there, but needed additional sources. I added more sources, and the page was declined for the same reason. I'm not sure what else I can do. How many more sources do I need? Any feedback is appreciated. Thank you. CPHansen2 (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

CPHansen2 hello and welcome to The Teahouse. The last comment said that national or possibly regional sources to confirm notability were needed. Can you find any articles in national newspapers (The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune) or magazines that cover the company in some detail?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Suspected factual inaccuracies of global proportion

https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Asian_countries_by_GDP

So East Timor is where the wealthiest asians are? North Korea's economy is bigger than South Korea?

I think all of this data was scrambled from the source, some loosing or gaining 2 decimal places - in short, the page is useless

Almcld (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The sooner WP realises it is incapable of maintaining these sorts of pages and bans them, the better. I've tried to patrol a number of similar pages and, even when first created and sourced to a reliable source, they're pretty useless (might as well just include a "Please see CIA Factbook" note). Then, after time and casual/POV editors get their hands on the article, it's game over (and that ignores outright vandalism).

In this case, the data has apparently been updated using other WP pages, by an account set up purely to do this. Sure, that WP data apparently originated from the IMF, but the scope for error is huge (which is why we're not allowed to do it). Then, Israel & East Timor are added, probably accurately as the one East Timor figure I checked agreed to the source WP page. Then it's deliberately vandalised by an IP editor to make the point that the data is incorrect, A normal Wikipedian kindly reverts one of the adds by that IP editor, but misses the earlier one that messed with the data. Now the article is meaningless, and remains that way for two months to today, at which point at least 2 editors (youself and me) have noticed the error but not corrected it.

Anyway, as you can see, this is one of my bugbears about WP :) . I avoid correcting this sort of article because the low level of patrol and ease of IP editing makes it a pointless task. Bromley86 (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't it at least give a specific IMF document as a source? Keith McClary (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Keith McClary: It should -- please help improve Misplaced Pages by adding a link to the source if you are familiar with it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Page not approved due to not enough notability

Hi there,

I created an article and it was not approved. A wikipedia editor said I should have references like news articles. So I then added some news articles as references and sent it in for approval again. I was given the same exact reason as before, as if I had not added enough. How much is enough? I have never created a wikipedia page before so maybe I am missing something?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

-Alea174.88.144.106 (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. This is your only edit to Misplaced Pages from this IP address and there is no account named Alea. If you log in under your account and comment here, or provide a link to the draft article, a Teahouse host will give you specific advice. Cullen Let's discuss it 19:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you have to tell us what is the article you're talking about. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alea. I am assuming this is about Draft:GTAnet. (To others: this was identified by looking up Alea at Special:listusers). As noted at the draft, "Most of your sources are from the GTAnet website itself. Are there any news articles written about GTAnet in newspapers?". In that regard, the sources we are looking for to establish a basis for notability and for verification of content are reliable, secondary sources, entirely unconnected with the topic, that discuss the topic substantively. If such sources do not exist then Misplaced Pages should not have an article on the topic. Not only are the majority of sources you cited from GTAnet itself, but many of the others are just press releases from GTAnet, regurgitated at other sites. Of the others, I see not one that meets these requirements. One is a dead link. Others don't mention GTAnet at all, much less provide substantive content about it. Others mention it in passing. We are not looking for confirmation of its existence, which is not in dispute. We're looking for reliable sources upon which the article's content can be shown to have already been the subject of publication out in the world, by sources that exercise editorial control and have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I don't think such sources exist and so I don't think an article should exist, but if they do, the sources presented in the draft are not them. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor in question is Alea Drain. Thanks for your detective work, Fuhghettaboutit. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for these tips. Your points are taken and it makes a certain amount of sense to me. I am curious, however, that pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/CANARIE , have been published even though it appears that most of the references are from the CANARIE site itself. It is also associated with GTAnet. :-/205.211.168.17 (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

For clarity, my response above is to CULLEN. I am so unclear even how to be a part of the discussion properly! Apologies! - Alea 205.211.168.17 (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Feral Five

Hi Alea and esteemed Tea House hosts.

I've been testing my editing on a couple of different things and noticed an interesting challenge to do with notability here: draft:Feral Five - I saw this band in London a while back and wanted find out more and it appears they have had some attention from people like the BBC music people and made the first track talking about replicating people using 3D printers (very topical right now since you can 3D print almost anything). I figured they're notable for that at least so should in essence despite their relative newness meet notability guidelines but I noted the article hasn't been resubmitted despite a number of changes by one or two editors. It would be interesting to know what else might be suggested if anything which would give a clearer idea of what is enough!! My thoughts are that it is not quantity but quality and I've done some reading about what is considered independent, verifiable and quality. Any guidance would be welcomed and might help Alea also with understanding. I'd also be interested to know what the page is over there too. Chantelle Cooper (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Chantelle Cooper! I moved your post to a subsection, as it is not directly related to the above question by Alea. What is exactly your question? If you improved Draft:Feral Five, why didn't you re-submit it yourself? Vanjagenije (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, you are the one I was, in fact, directing my question below to. The one that references the CANARIE page.

Chantelle, I appreciate your comment as well and am open to any and all tips and hints! -Alea Alea Drain (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Alea Drain: Hi again Alea. Please see by way of analogy what about article X? In short, the fact that there are other non-compliant articles on Misplaced Pages tells you very little about what is compliant or acceptable. There is no central authority running things so we have gobs of articles that should be deleted or need improvement or violate policies and remain because they have not been looked at. In other words, the existence of comparable or more problematic articles has little precedential value. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

external link does not work in all browsers

The editor deleted my note that an external link works in Firefox. It did not work for me in Safari. I did not try in Google Chrome nor Internet Explorer. How may I help the public avoid frustration? AgedCare14 (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello AgedCare14. As WP:BROWSER says, "There is no perfect browser for viewing Misplaced Pages." It is best to select external links which are compatible with a wide range of popular browsers, but this is not always possible. It is not practical for you to try to help readers avoid frustration completely in such cases. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added links in articles that have a "see also" section. How may I add this section to other appropriate articles? AgedCare14 (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@AgedCare14: I'd be care adding this link to too many articles -- generally the use of see alsos is pretty limited. But if you truly believe that is important for readers of a certain article to see further reading about Alfred Worcester, you can create a see also section by adding the text ==See also== at the bottom of the article, before the references. And under that section heading, put an asterisk and the link to Alfred Worcester. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding sports seasons pages.

Hello!

Looking through the team pages for the 2015 MLB season, I've noticed that no two pages have the exact same sections and format. However, most of these sections are already developed and I don't want to tamper with any of them unnecessarily. But perhaps that's just me being paranoid. Would it be fine if I were to reformat all 30 pages so all their sections are the exact same? Or should I create the pages for the 2016 season and make them the way I want to. Thanks!

Best, chaguy2457 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaguy2457 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If in doubt, it's probably safest to discuss the matter at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Addition to the Urdu Misplaced Pages

I edited a page about fatima Jinnah in urdu.after how long wikipedia will show my edit,still not showing--Shehzana arshad (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. This page is about the English Misplaced Pages. Your contributions to the Urdu Misplaced Pages are listed on this page, which hopefully you will be able to understand. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Shehzana arshad: Your edit summaries said "Added content" but no real content was added in your edits. Only blank lines and punctuation was changed. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

query

Hello I am editing '2015 national games of India'. In the subtopic 'medals tally' there is a table with column heading 'nation' and I want to change it to 'states' how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asug1996 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Asug1996, welcome to the Teahouse. The source code says {{RankedMedalTable|...}} in the place where the column headings are displayed. That means Template:RankedMedalTable is used. The documentation there shows how to change the column heading. I fixed it in . See more at Help:A quick guide to templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Teahouse
• Misplaced Pages help forums