Wikipedia:Teahouse

Tenryuu, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Conflicting Advice from Editors

Hello, I'm writing an article on a Michigan law firm & the 1st feedback was that it read like an advertisement, so I removed some of the language around large lawsuits & notable publications, but the 2nd feedback (different editor) said it didn't show 'notability', so I added some of those back in. Now the 3rd feedback (same editor as 1st feedback) is saying it reads like an advertisement again.

Any advice is appreciated.

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

Sethasteinman (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, Sethasteinman. I wouldn't necessarily say that the feedback you have received is contradictory. As far as I understand, when an editor declines a draft, they can only specify one reason for doing so in the template. It may just be that Robert McClenon and SwisterTwister differed in their assessments of what the most pressing issue was. Often, concerns about notability and too promotional a tone go together in drafts about companies. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I wrote an article about our company's product, I would appreciate any feedback

I work for Lsoft technologies http://lsoft.net/ and I wrote an article about our product called Active@ KillDisk. Since data security is complex topic I figured that it would be best that someone from our side write the article and let you editors assess it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Miskonius/sandbox&oldid=711259661

As someone who uses Wikipedia on daily basis i did my best to support any claims with facts and make the article look as unbiased as possible. Please let me know what you think of it. Miskonius (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

If you work for Lsoft, you need to declare your conflict of interest in accordance with the paid editing policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have disclosed me relation with LSoft on my user page. Is there anything else i can do?

Miskonius (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Miskonius I see yourdraft cites some 30 sources. i haven't yet had time to review them all. Wikipedia requires that an article be about a notable topic. This is most often established by citing multiple independent published reliable sources, each of which contains discussion of the topic in some detail, more than a directory entry or a mere passing mention. Can you advise which of the sources cited a) is completely independent of the software and its makers; b) discusses the software in some detail, say for several paragraphs at least; and c) is published by a reliable source? This would help a reviewer to asses the draft. If the answer is none, you would need to add some. On the other hand, citing multiple repetitive sources that support the same statement(s) is not helpful.

Also, product logs and screen shots are generally uploaded to en-Wikipedia (not commons) under a claim of fair use. Such non-free content should not be added to the page until after it has been accepted aas an article. DES ^(talk) 21:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Well it was my opinion that claiming that our software is recommended by government institutions and universities requires more than one link.

If i ha to pick 2 of them it would be this test done by a certain Australian university https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Miskonius/sandbox#cite_note-7 http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1098&context=adf

and also this recommendation by the United States Election Assistance Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Miskonius/sandbox#cite_note-13 http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/AssetManager/unisyn%20openelect%20v1.0%20draft%20appendix%20c%20december%2029%202009.pdf

I could have added a lot more to tell you the truth, but I was thinking that it might be too much. We even have blog from NASA where the mention using us but the blog is outdated and for all we know NASA doesnt use software for data destruction. If you have any questions please ask. Miskonius (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

DES I have tried 2-3 times to upload images via commons and and they got swiftly deleted by the Wikipedia bot in less than 24 hours. I havent seen any recommendations when it comes to uploading logos or software screenshots. This was the only way I knew to publish the images without them being deleted

Miskonius (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Miskonius, Logos and screen shots are normally non-free content. AS such, they cannot be uploaded to commons. If uploaded to the English-language Wikipedia under a claim of fair use, they must be used in at least one actual article (not a draft nor a userspace page) Thus they must wait to be uploaded until a draft has been approved and moved to the main article space. See Wikipedia:Logos for fuller information and directions. DES ^(talk) 22:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

OK DES Thank very much I will definitely check it out. Also KillDisk logos and screenshots are available all over the but there is not a single mention of that such use is permitted when uploading files. Can you tell me how will this case of mine progress from now on?

Miskonius (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Signatures

I have realized that other Wikipedians may have a fancy signature that isn't like the default. How do you change your signatures? OwenJiang (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, OwenJiang. This isn't the answer that you are looking for, and it might make me unpopular with other editors, but I would recommend sticking with a simple signature. Personally, I think the default format is clear and unfussy, and does the job perfectly well. Others will no doubt disagree and be able to offer you advice should you wish to change it! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

To change your signature, you'll have to go to Special:Preferences and change it there. Be sure to check the "treat the above as wiki markup" box or it won't work. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Whatever you choose to do, OwenJiang, please note the guidelines at Wikipedia:Signatures, and in particular the part about the need to include at least one link to your user page. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Ignorant about copyright

I have a couple of old pictures that I would like to upload to wikipedia but I'm not sure if I can or how I will do it. This picure is from Detroit Public Library's Digital Collections: http://digitalcollections.detroitpubliclibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora%3A185158 The website has a statemnet about the copyright but I don't really understand it. http://digitalcollections.detroitpubliclibrary.org/copyright-statement*Treker (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @*Treker: and welcome to the Teahouse. The copyright statement on that page says "Images on the Detroit Public Library's Digital Collections website may not be reproduced without permission.".

Wikipedia's image policy says the images would need to have a copyright licence that allows reproduction by anyone.

Therefore unfortunately images from this site cannot be uploaded. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Well that's unfortunate. Thanks for the answer anyway.*Treker (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, *Treker and welcome to the Teahouse. What Joseph2302 said above was correct in general. However, that particular image was, according to the caption, published in 1911. That means that it is out of copyright in the US, and can be uploaded to Commons with the tag "pd-old". An attempt to claim copyright on an image published prior to 1923 is of no legal effect, and so the image is in the public domain, regardless of any notice. See this site. DES ^(talk) 21:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, I did not know that that US law applied. In which case, I reverse my answer- yes you can upload it, for the reason above. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks for the answer. Now I just need to figure out how to upload it.*Treker (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Joseph2302 The event occurred in the US (New York, to be precise). The photographer was located in the US. Publication was apparently in the US. There is no other law to apply. DES ^(talk) 22:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC) @Joseph2302: DES ^(talk) 22:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

*Treker the most usual way, in a windows system, is to right click the display image on a web page and choose "Save as" and save a copy on your computer. Then go to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard and follow the prompts. Or go to Special:Upload to upload just to the English-language Wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 22:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try that.*Treker (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Uploading images

I was just reminding myself how to do a few things when it occurred to me that I can't find a way to upload images onto my introductory page. It's not essential today but may be a useful option in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markostri (talk • contribs) 16:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

There are two steps to using images, Markostri: first the image must be uploaded (preferably to Wikimedia commons, but to Wikipedia if it is not freely licensed but is being use under fair use rules (which will never apply to an image used on a User page). Then the image can be placed on the page. Please see Help:Upload. --ColinFine (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Advice on what I should do next with an article I have submitted.

My article calls into question, elitism in government, I.e. " That Capitalist elitism cannot exist, unless supported by inequality."
It therefore is, by its very nature discriminatory towards the majority.79.67.104.211 (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. It sounds as if you are wishing to present an original argument. This is never ever permitted on Wikipedia, which only accepts summaries of material which has already been published in reliable places. Please see Original research for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

how to edit corporate article on Wikipedia

Hi,

I'm looking to add useful information to this Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Videojet_Technologies&action=history

I am associated with the company. However, I'm gathering reliable independent sources to support the entry. If I edit it with non-biased facts about the company and provide reliable sources is this okay? Or, do I need to submit this information to a Wikipedia editor first to review and then the Wikipedia editor add that information if it meets requirements? Thank you. Kpjaffe (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kpjaffe, and welcome to the Teahouse. You should 1) disclsoe your conflict of interest on your user page in accord with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. 2) be very careful whethre and how you edit the article. Direct correction of factual errors, when supported by a cited reliable source, is OK. Othre than that, you are strongly advised to sugest changes on the article talk page. You can use {{Request edit}} to call attention to your suggested edit. An uninvolved editor should reveiw the requ3est adn apply it, or not, as seems appropriate. DES ^(talk) 16:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

How do I report someone using improper language when addressing others in WP?

I have encountered someone that has in their effort to support illogical grammar to use cuss words that is not consistent with WP standards. To whom and how is this to be reported?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

This is about Shingo Takagi. I am not aware of any rule forbidding "cuss words", though we are urged to respect other editors. I do find your own edit summary, "gram", puzzling. Maproom (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The best place to report editor misconduct is probably Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Srednuas Lenoroc. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

It is but @Srednuas Lenoroc: you should read WP:BOOMERANG before lodging anything at WP:ANI. By this I'm not making any comment about your language but about your attitude. You have done a lot of commendable work in correcting spellings etc but then you are also correcting a lot of grammar that others do not consider requires correction. From a lot of the discussions on your talk page you do not appear to accept that what you are doing is considered by some as either trivial or outrightly wrong. This can be considered disruptive editing and lead to sanctions against you. I suspect that English is not your native language and while there is a balance to be found making Wikipedia understandable to non-native readers of English, antagonizing native speakers of English by changing words or phrases that are grammatically correct or are accepted use of those words or phrases because it isn't logical to you is not the course to follow. Nthep (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

So maproom, are you saying that there is no issue about language use because you do not hold my edit summary legitimate? Therefore it is always appropriate in such instances regardless of the person or rank within WP to use foul language?

And I am well aware of a boomerang effect but the issue is clear cut. Someone used inappropriate language and should be dealt with otherwise there will appear to be a multi tier respect system within WPSrednuas Lenoroc (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Srednuas Lenoroc. The relevant policy is WP:CIVIL. The proper place to make a report is WP:ANI, But I would advise making a polite request on the user talk page of the person whose language you object to first. In the past, the Wikipedia community has been unwilling to sanction editors for profane language except in quite extreme cases, or when it is coupled with insults that amount to personal attacks, or when it is a very long continued pattern. But one never knows exactly how a sanction request will play out at ANI. Be prepared to offer diffs and to explain why the language used harms the project. DES ^(talk) 16:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The person was warned and continued with their inappropriate action.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

On the one hand, I agree that the edit summary of "gram" is cryptic, but I guessed correctly what it meant. I guessed that it meant "grammar", and it was correcting a grammar error. However, it is better to say "grammar". If you are using the desktop/laptop version, rather than the mobile version, you can select the minor edit summary "Spelling/grammar correction", which is even easier than typing. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The original poster has filed a report at WP:ANI at considerable length. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Srednuas Lenoroc: I would not say that there is no issue about the language. I would not use such language myself. But when you make an edit (one which appears to me and probably others as not constructive), and explain it with the cryptic remark "gram", it does rather provoke the relatively innocuous response "gram my ass". Maproom (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

When someone uses foul language they have used foul language that as far as I can tell is not appropriate to WP> That is the issue.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

One issue is the use of mildly objectionable language. Another, more material, issue is your strange campaign to remove the word "back" from articles where it is clearly appropriate. Maproom (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And should it be said that you are on a campaign to change the issue. Foul language is foul language and should not be part of the WP experience.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I had best skip off to the ideas lab again when I've reminded myself how to do it as this page has just informed me that people report grammatical inconsistencies. My contribution is so far avoiding any addition to historical events that may be contested in any language but hope to consider ideas related to future creativity that may be inconsistent too but hopefully of some collaborative value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markostri (talk • contribs) 16:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyways, as you are already aware, the complaint has been lodged.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

REPORTING VANDALISM?

Hi there,

From time to time I come across misinformation being added to articles, including ones I've originally created. Is there a way of reporting vandalism or perceived vandalism?

Thanks,

Beryl reid fan (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Beryl reid fan. You can report obvious and persistent vandals at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Before posting there, a final warning in an escalating series should have been posted to the user's talk page (for example {{Uw-vandal4}}, {{Uw-spam4}} or {{Uw-speedy4}}), and the user must have vandalized within the last few hours, including after the final warning was given. Depending on how blatant the vandalism is, you don't always need to start at a first level warning. A large variety of warning templates can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Your block request is unlikely to be acted upon unless you follow these steps. Serious incidents that are not simple vandalism can be reported at WP:AN/I. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, make sure that the problem does not fall under WP:NOTVAND before warning and reporting someone. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanking you, Fuhghettaboutit & Ian.thomson Beryl reid fan (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

transportation company article

I would like to write a short article of a new transportation company. Is that allowed?Ktour.cfl (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ktour.cfl. New companies are rarely notable enough for a Wikipedia article, as we define that term here. There are a few exceptions. Please read Your first article and consider whether the new company has received enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to justify an article. Your time may well be better spent in improving existing articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

How to make the citation wizard on sandbox show the whole dropdown?

Hi, When i go to my sandbox, edit source section and I try to use the cite wizard, i cannot see the drop down options. it seems to be hidden beneath the text box right below. Can someone help me with it? I'm not sure if I can include a picture here to illustrate the problem.

Writeweapon (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

How many sources does a draft need to be "notable"

I have been working on a draft for wikipedia and I have submitted it several times. It has recently been turned down for a lack of notability. I was curious about what a good amount of sources would be for a draft in order to get it published. If you want to look at the article here is the link.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Subterfuge_(game). Thank you for helping me resolve this issue. Also if you have any other advice on improving my article in any other way do not be shy on telling me.

Chariot Rider (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Chariot Rider. The absolute minimum number of reliable, independent sources needed to demonstrate notability is two, but in such a case, they had better be very solid sources. I encourage you to think in terms of the quality of the sources and the depth of coverage they devote to the topic, rather than the number of sources. It is far better to have five rock solid sources than fifteen mediocre sources. Reviewers will also look at the topic itself to see whether there are issues of promotionalism or conflict of interest. Biographies of 19th century state or provincial legislators or professional athletes who played 100 years ago do not raise such issues. Biographies of young upcoming professionals, and articles about lesser known bands, recently released books and yes, video games, will be subject to increased scrutiny. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe there is an agreed-upon minimum number, Chariot Rider. What is required is "significant coverage", which, as Cullen328 suggests, usually means both some depth and some breadth of coverage. As WP:NOTE puts it, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Cordless Larry (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

When I declined your article, it was not so much because of the number of sources but the independence of the sources, most of which were associated with the vendor of the game. I can't now look at the version that I declined because it has been redacted due to copyright infringement. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Craig Walendziak Rapid Deletion due to "alleged" COI

Hello, I spent all day writing an article on Craig Walendziak (Fan of his films and music). Apparently there was a problem a year ago with an article. The same admin from that problem keeps deleting the new one and accusing me of being a 'sock'. I am not, and that investigation was closed. The article is well written and factual (LA Times, Variety, Deadline, NY Times, IMBD Credits). Just looking for advice on how to get this one to stick. I want to contribute but can't see wasting my time if one person can launch a campaign to get something removed so easily. Thanks in advance for your advice! TheVictorCrowley (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, TheVictorCrowley. Craig Walendziak was deleted three times by three different admins; the user who nominated your recreation for deletion is not one of those admins. The LA Times, Variety, etc. would have been good sources if only they gave the subject significant coverage—not just a mention that he was the screenwriter. What we are looking for is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. See also the replies to the question above this. —teb728 t c 00:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you t it was deleted for different reasons, after being renominated by the same person over and over again. I added to the draft page to hopefully end that. It was deleted for COI and a Banned user (which I'm not). I was accused of being a Sock. Which I'm not. I'll let that play out.

I believe the current draft of the article has interviews with the writer, events that he hosted and full paragraphs devoted to his writing style. Not to mention his production credits on many popular films. It meets the notability requirements.

I appreciate the advice. TheVictorCrowley (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@TheVictorCrowley: No, the notability requirement is “significant coverage in independent reliable sources”; that excludes his interviews and events that he hosted because they are not independent. I don’t recall anything in the draft about his writing style. —teb728 t c 01:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I am the "admin" that TheVictorCrowley is complaining about. I am not an admin. The SPI is not closed; the CU failed because of staleness; the behavioral analysis is now underway. The drafts yesterday were not deleted due to COI; the first was deleted per (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion); the second was deleted primarily due to G5 - promotionalism (which - TheVictorCrowley, is not the same as COI) - -G5 is for when an article shouldn't exist because it fails NOTABILITY but someone has created it anyway because they are a fan or because they have an actual COI, and that "fan-ness" is clear in the article. Look, you have been told this six ways from Sunday, but for an article to exist about X, we need multiple independent, reliable sources that talk about X at some depth. Currently, there are not multiple, independent sources that talk about Walendziak at some depth. There may be one day, once he "makes it". But WP is not here to help people make it. We record stuff after they have made it. We'll know he had made it when, as I said, there are not multiple, independent sources that talk about Walendziak at some depth. It feels like you are banging your head against the wall, because you are. This is not me persecuting you. This is you trying to blast through long-established Wikipedia policy. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC) (delete errant "not" Jytdog (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC))

Welcome to the Teahouse, TheVictorCrowley. I agree with the other comments above. In the eyes of experienced editors, your draft is far from "well written" and does not establish this person's notability. I read the coverage in Variety and the Los Angeles Times, and all I see is passing mention of his first screenwriting credit, not significant coverage of Craig Walendziak as a person. I see nothing of worth in the New York Times but please provide a link if I am wrong. Interviews with this person do not make him notable, as we need independent sources for that, and him talking about himself is the exact opposite of independent. Listings of events he hosted are of no value. Please link to "full paragraphs devoted to his writing style" in independent, reliable sources. The discussions of his writing style that I have found have been fleeting.

Your references are formatted so poorly with all the bare URLs that it makes it difficult to zero in on promising references. Please reformat them cleanly as explained in Referencing for beginners. Eliminate the weak sources from your draft, leaving only the best rock solid reliable independent sources which devote significant coverage of the person named Craig Walendziak. That will enable reviewers to evaluate whether or not he is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah i don't recall there ever being a NYT source and a Walendziak search turns up nothing. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Village Voice [1] and NY Times [2] Jytdog TheVictorCrowley (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Jytdog and Cullen³²⁸ for your advice. I do believe Craig Walendziak has 'made it'. Since he has two produced films by reputable companies and he has produced films that have had theatrical releases. Additionally, both his bands records are on notable indie labels. You may not like hardcore punk - but those are very notable indie labels. Finally, User:Jytdog I think we can both agree (as adults) that your original objection to this article was because you assumed I was a sock. Which I'm not, and you reacted hastily. The SPI you opened will hopefully clear that up.

From the LA times, "Novice screenwriter Craig Walendziak has followed England's template, charting the daily worsening of the symptoms. But he doesn't get that the 2013 "Contracted" was special because it was much more than a zombie flick. With the venereal disease as a catalyst, England explored the downward spiral of Samantha's personal life and arrived at insights on the stigma of bisexuality that were more profound than what the Palme d'Or-winning "Blue Is the Warmest Color" mustered. But in the sequel, Walendziak can't tell us anything new about Riley even with the addition of characters such as his mother (Suzanne Voss) and very pregnant sister (Laurel Vail)."

Not a ringing endorsement, but not just stating that he wrote it either.

I'll look for some more press, but in the film industry screenwriters aren't given much page space. Most people talk about Directors.

. TheVictorCrowley (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times mention is a bare credit devoid of discussion and is therefore worthless, TheVictorCrowley. That kind of thing only irritates reviewers. The Los Angeles Times source devotes only two phrases to his sequel screeplay and pays much more attention to the screeplay of the first movie. We have plenty of biographies of notable screenwriters and notable punk musicians here on Wikipedia. So far, you have failed to convince experienced editors that this person is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

But the whole NY Times article is about a movie HE authored. The movie wouldn't exist without him. So any discussion of plot, etc is directly related to the author of the film - Craig Walendziak. A CREDIT in the film industry is very hard to come by. Cullen³²⁸TheVictorCrowley (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

If your point was correct, TheVictorCrowley, then the screenwriter of every single movie reviewed in a reliable source would be eligible for a Wikipedia biography. That is patently false and absurd on the face of it. Come on. You will have to come up with a much better argument for notability than that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

TheVictorCrowly, it is obvious to all of us that you believe that CW has "made it". What we are telling you, is that we don't see the evidence of that, in the form of multiple, independent sources that talk about him at depth. Please see WP:Golden Rule, which exists for people exactly in your situation. It summarizes WP:NOTABILITY. Key words here are "multiple" "independent" and "depth". All three are needed. That is what we apply to any article in Wikipedia, when the community puts its attention on it. It isn't personal, at all. Jytdog (talk)

Though it is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, I thought I would check out his IMDb profile. He is mainly listed as a producer but when I checked the films, there was anywhere between 12-31 listed producers which seemed to be a credit given to folks who made significant donations to Kickstarter campaigns. He has one writing credit for a completed film, one that doesn't appear to have received much notice, and one writing credit to a non-notable film isn't sufficient to make the author notable. Having a film "in development" is meaningless as many films with this status are never actually made. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Mods

I love how the definition of an 'attack' is so broadly defined. Any criticism of a moderator is deemed as an attack. This is what I hate about living In the twenty first century. Authority figures are so thin skinned they can't accept any deviation from their dicatats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlequin kite (talk • contribs) 17:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should provide some context to what it is that you are talking about otherwise no one really knows how to help you.*Treker (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the editing history of the original poster, you will see that, in one article, they added unsourced material, which, while likely true, was unsourced. In another article they inserted an editorial comment about class attitudes in Britain that was not in the scope of the article. So the real problem is that a new editor is complaining rather than trying to learn what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are. Also, the original poster is complaining about "mods", but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that usually anyone can edit, and only occasionally has moderators. User:Harlequin kite - You are more likely to be accepted in the Wikipedia community if you try to learn its policies and guidelines rather than if you just complain vaguely. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I did look at their edit history. They seems like a someone who doesn't understand how an encyclopedia is written. I was mostly trying to get them to explain themself, which most likely they won't do.*Treker (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I have posted a welcome message on your talk page, Harlequin kite, which includes links to pages that will help you understand Wikipedia's policies. An important one is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which means that anyone using the encyclopedia should be able to check that the information comes from a reliable source. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I understand everything that everyone has said and it is all fair comment. I am not planning on becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia but if I was going to do that I understand why it's important to learn the rules. I left my OP here deliberately vague. Thankyou all for your comments and sorry for maybe being a bit aggressive as a new poster.

I guess what I find hard to deal with is the way other users (not Mods) jump all over you and flush your comments down the memory hole. As soon as I joined Wikipedia one user was all over me like a rash and when I criticised them they said that was an 'attack' and gave me a formal warning, talk about Alice in Wonderland.

I think to new posters who don't know the arcana of Wikipedia some of the overly zealous modding and torrent of negative comments can come across as mobbing as it's common for long time users of a forum of website to assume a lot of knowledge that isn't actually obvious.

However I've said my piece and I'll shut up now. I don't have any massive plans to write or edit articles.

Thankyou for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlequin kite (talk • contribs) 19:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Please read the policies and guidelines. While I understand that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are lengthy and complex, their purpose is to ensure that the information presented by Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, is verifiable and neutral. You aren't going to find Wikipedia a friendly place until you try to be friendly. Complaining about "mods" and "overly zealous modding" isn't constructive. After reading the policies and guidelines, if you have questions about them, you can come back and ask here. Until then, I suggest that you read the policies and guidelines to understand why your edits were reverted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I will add that I do think that the Level 3 warning given for a personal attack to a completely new user was harsh, but I think that the comments by the completely new user were harsh even coming from a completely new and clueless user. I don't know what the original poster's actual state of mind was, but it does appear that they came in to Wikipedia with a chip on their shoulder about class in the United Kingdom. Their lack of knowledge of Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources is understandable, but they do seem to have come in with an agenda. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I gave Harlequin kite the new user's benefit of the doubt when I pointed him or her to WP:NPA (but did not give a warning) after I was called a "spooky online person", a "bloomin mod," a "thought Stasi", "high handed", and a "net culture control freak". Most of that does not show up because I redacted it while moving the user's response to the bottom of his talk page (and I unfortunately neglected to leave the intended redacted notice in its place). I left the level 3 attack warning after the user responded by telling me to "get a life" and called me "patronising" and "condescending". It's rather funny that he or she thought that I was patronizing by saying "I've already explained the Ashley Byrne removal in the above warning, and on the article's talk page. I'm not going to cover it a third time." Explaining it a third time with no comment might have been patronizing, saying that I was explaining it a third time because he or she didn't get it the first two times would have been patronizing, but not covering it a third time? Meters (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Bemused

I am finding mods on Wikipedia to be 'control freaks'.

I find it very rude when a mod edits away your comment or makes snide remarks.

To someone new it comes across as very patronising and condescending.

I have come across this attitude on other forums that there is a kind of in group of mods and regular posters.

I must have missed the memo in the late 90s that told everyone all the information that they find so obvious.

I'm not planning to be around here regularly anyway but I find some of the attitudes of net culture people (not just wikipedia) quite stats I like and controlling and tends towards a kind of stultifying conformity and playground level mocking of anything different.

There I've said hm piece. Make of it what you will or let the flame war ensue.

Harlequin kite (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

^^^ don't know if I've done this wiggle thing right (how am I supposed to know??)

Hi, Harlequin kite. Yes, you've got the twiddles right. Your points are addressed in the item just above (and generally, when you are adding to an existing discussion it's better to add to the same section rather than starting a new one). --ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Making a link to new page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mitchell Hello there I have made a page for Peter Mitchell which has been accepted. I tried to add him to the disambiguation page, but it won't appear as a link to the page I made. Can someone help? Many thanks Jessafair (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jessafair. The article you created is at Peter Mitchell (photographer), whereas the link you added to the Peter Mitchell disambiguation page was to Peter Mitchell (i.e. the very same disambiguation page). It looks like another editor has now fixed this. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Moving a page

I created a page (Simshar tragedy) about the sinking of a fishing boat named Simshar, however I am trying to move to page to Simshar in order to present a neutral point of view (describing it as a tragedy is not substantiated by evidence). Simshar currently leads to a disambiguation displaying Simshar tragedy and Simshar (film), a page about a film of the same name. Whenever I try to move Simshar tragedy to Simshar I am told that I am unable to do so because a page of the same name already exists. Could anybody guide me on how to remove the disambiguation and solve this? Thanks! Nevborg (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Since there is a disambiguation page, you can't simply rename the page to Simshar. You might rename the page to something like Simshar (shipwreck) or Simshar shipwreck. You should also edit Simshar (film), since it refers to the shipwreck. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, much appreciated. Is there no way to remove the disambiguation and have Simshar (film) as an internal link within the general Simshar page? I don't think a disambiguation really makes sense in this case, given that the film is based directly on events that would be described in the Simshar page, and Simshar isn't a common name in the first place.--Nevborg (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

If both the shipwreck and the film are notable, there should be two articles. An alternative to having the disambiguation page would be to make one of them primary and have a hatnote to the other. The fact that the film is about the shipwreck doesn't mean that the film isn't notable in its own. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Simshar doesn't seem to be a natural title for an article about a shipwreck, Nevborg. I think the title needs to be more descriptive just the name of the boat (after all, the boat itself is not the subject). C.f. Sinking of the RMS Titanic. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Both the shipwreck and the film are definitely notable, so they should both have a separate page. My idea was to have a general page about the incident named Simshar (but something like Simshar shipwreck would also work) with a hatnote leading to the film (except I didn't know it was called a hatnote!). I think this might work better than a disambiguation in this case. Perhaps I'll float this idea in the Simshar tragedy talk page and see what other people think.Nevborg (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Link to wikisource (DNB00)

I'm not sure what is happening here. An article (not by me) "John Lambert (general)" had/has a reference to the entry for him in DNB. The reference, if clicked, pulls up a "Wikisource does not have a text with this exact name" fault. That fault page, however, suggests searching for the same page in other texts. Clicking that brings up the right DNB page. What is happening here? I cannot see what is wrong. Macquants (talk) 08:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Macquants. I've fixed the link. The reason why it wasn't working was that the Wikisource article title is styled "Lambert, John (1619-1683) (DNB00)", whereas the link was "Lambert, John (1619–1683) (DNB00)" (note the very subtle difference - hyphen versus dash!). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Now, the issue is that the hyphen was changed to a dash in accordance with MOS:DATERANGE. That's going to happen again. What do people think we should do here? Presumably, move the Wikisource article to make it comply with the manual of style too? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Never thought of that one; but given my old eyes can hardly tell the difference between - and ~, never mind –, I can see that one cropping up with regularity. Change (or even check) ALL wikisource date ranges is a tall order. Laziness suggests changing the programme code. But thanks for your help!

---

or, maybe, Macquants (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Problems with well written non-notable articles

I found that, some badly written articles with few lines have notability. But, there are some long, well-written articles which are not notable. They are created by the subjects themselves and detailed. How to nominate these nicely written articles for deletion, if there are no reliable sources? Greek Legend (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand the question. If the article is written well, but does not have adequate sources establishing notability, it can be nominated for deletion. In particular, you appear to be referring to articles that have conflict of interest. If the referenced sources don't support notability, indicate that in the Articles for Deletion nomination, and also mention the conflict of interest, which isn't in itself a reason to delete, but is a reason to question the article. Is there some other question? Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Badly written articles about notable subjects are, as you say, a different question. They may need improvement. Depending on how bad they are, I (and others will disagree) may be nominated for deletion in order to get them improved within seven days. That is my comment, but others probably disagree, Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Greek Legend. Before nominating articles at AFD, read WP:BEFORE and check for alternatives to deletion. In particular for articles without good sources in the article, check that you cannot find sources on the internet. An article is deleted because the subject is not non-notable, not necessarily because the article does not show notability. —teb728 t c 05:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I do not agree that a poorly written article about a notable topic should be nominated for deletion. The venue is called Articles for Deletion not "Articles for Improvement". I do not believe that an article should be nominated unless an editor sincerely believes that it should be deleted. A few minutes spent copy editing and removing garbage is the first step. Then, add a couple of references to reliable sources, and that poorly written article has been transformed into something far more useful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

See Deletion is not cleanup, yes, the threat of deletion does sometimes result in a poor article being improved, but deletion nomination intended to fix a bad article is an abuse of process. It usually shows that the nominator has not complied with WP:BEFORE. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out (Greek Legend—Robert McClenon—teb728—Cullen328) that above it is mentioned to use WP:BEFORE as an alternative to deletion, but that WP:ATD (alternatives to deletion) is an actual policy. Both BEFORE and ATD are WP:POLICY. They are not optional and must both be followed before an AfD can be correctly introduced. Anybody jumping the gun without BEFORE and ATD is ... jumping the gun and abusing/undermining the process. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay. AFD should be used for well-written non-notable articles but not for badly written notable articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

There are two problems with tagging as such. The first is that articles may remain tagged as needing help for a long time. The second is that, instead, sometimes the owner of the article will repeatedly untag it. If there is an active WikiProject with which the article is associated, ask for help at the WikiProject. What does anyone recommend if the owner of the article repeatedly untags it? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Deal with the WP:OWN policy violation, which is a separate issue. One policy violation does not justify another one. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Feedback on a draft article

I recently wrote a rudimentary draft in my sandbox for an article about the Lunar Polar Hydrogen Mapper (LunaH-map), a CubeSat to be launched on the first SLS flight in 2018, and was looking for feedback on the article before I submit it to AFC. Who can I talk about this?Cincotta1 (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

For reference User:Cincotta1/sandbox. —teb728 t c 03:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I have moved your draft to Draft: Lunar Polar Hydrogen Mapper. I will comment on it within a day. Thank you for asking for advice.~ It is a good idea to ask for advice, and in this case I think that the advice may be positive, but I am not sure. Robert McClenon (talk)

I found coverage of this tiny lunar observation satellite in Popular Science magazine. It looks notable to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggest submitting it for AFC review. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so the plan is to see if I can integrate popular science as a reference, wait a day or two, and if no more feedback comes submit to AFC, Thanks for your help Cullen and Robert.Cincotta1 (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Suppressing "|C|TB" after talk link

Is there a workaround to suppress the "|C|TB" after the talk link in my Teahouse signature? Usually it is helpful, but it is confusing in my reply below. —teb728 t c 01:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello teb728. I believe that only those with the Teahouse gadget activated see that form of signature here. DES ^(talk) 03:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, when I logout, I see you are right. So I should assume guests do not see it! —teb728 t c 03:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

just wondering

How do you message people like you did me? thanksCubsnake (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cubsnake. Do you mean like the messages on your user talk page User talk:Cubsnake? If so, each user has a user talk page whose name is “User talk:” *(including the colon) in front of their username. Since my username is teb728, my user talk page is User talk:teb728. You could leave me a message there. Be sure you sign messages with four tildes like ~~~~; that gives a signature like —teb728 t c 00:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

What's the next step for me to create a new music album page?

Hello! I recently tried to just set in place a new Wikipedia page for Esperanza Spalding's most recent album, "Emily's D+Evolution," with only one link from her website to indicate that it is indeed her fifth album. I have read the AllMusic and Pitchfork website's reviews, so those are just two of presumably numerous other music/journalism websites that will have reviews of this album. I'm sure that my submission was rejected because it was deemed incomplete. I want to make sure that I follow the correct guidelines to include the reviews, album cover picture, and maybe some interview excerpts, as well. What is the next/first thing that I should do, now? Matthewcasebier (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

For information, the draft concerned is at Draft:Emily's D+Evolution. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Matthewcasebier. You could imitate the content of another album article like Radio Music Society. —teb728 t c 01:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I concur with the decline. The mere fact that an album exists does not make it notable, and does not make it an adequate article. While imitating the content of another album article sometimes causes the author to think that that approach guarantees acceptability, imitating the content of another album article will be better than the current draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Matthewcasebier, if you can actually find reviews of the album in reliable sources you an add summaries of the reviews to the article, perhaps with short quotes from each. (be sure to attribute any quotes in the prose, and to add proper citations to show the source of each review.) That would help to establish notability. See also our guideline for notability of albums. DES ^(talk) 03:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Matthewcasebier. Let's all remember that our primary purpose here is to build an encyclopedia so any discussion of a possible new article ought to include an evaluation of the notability of the topic. In my opinion, this new album by Esperanza Spaulding is indisputably notable, as a simple Google News search for "Emily's D+Evolution" yields many reviews in reliable sources, including this Rolling Stone review, which I consider the Gold Standard for American popular music. I also found reviews in the Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, the San Jose Mercury-News, the Boston Globe, the London Evening Standard, The Seattle Times and the venerable Village Voice. Plus many lesser known but probably reliable publications. What could be better sourcing for a music album released this month than all of that? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I've developed the draft a little with these edits, Matthewcasebier, removing some sources but replacing them with more significant, independent coverage. The subject is clearly notable, as argued above. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

References: endnotes vs hyperlinks

I just edited my first article - one suggested when I opened an account this afternoon. When citing journal articles, I've used either foot or endnotes. In this article, the content included in the endnotes seemed better suited to hyperlinks. Hence I didn't correct or change because I wasn't sure what is policy. Is there a style sheet to guide decisions about citations as well as the format? The article I edited was about Konalai in India. Thanks.Caboc333 (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Caboc333. I'm not sure I understand your question, because an endnote/footnote can contain a hyperlink to the source, and indeed most references to content available online do just that. Can you give a specific example of what you mean? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Caboc333. I take it that this is about the article Konalai. Source citations should be placed within a <ref>...</ref> tag (that is, after the ref and before the /ref). This will produce a list of citations where a {{reflist}} or a <references /> tag has been placed, or at the end if none has. Such citations may contain urls, to make hypertext links to the sources. This is good practice if the source can be found online. However, a citation should always contain a title, and usually the name of the larger work (newspaper, magazine, website, etc) or the publisher. If known, the name of the author and the date of publication should be provided. If relevant, a page number or numbers should be provided. Wikipedia documentation generally calls these "footnotes" (See Help:Footnotes ) although they are in a sense endnotes. See Referencing for Beginners for more information on them. You may use citation templates, such as {{cite journal}}, {{cite news}}, and {{cite web}} if you choose to. They standardize the formatting of citations, and output machine-readable metadata, but are not at all required. I will add metadata to the cites in that article. DES ^(talk) 20:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for answering so quickly. I wasn't sure about putting a hyperlink as a citation because it can just be a link in the body of the article. I've been reading Wikipedia entries for years and never really tuned into how references are selected. The article link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konalai and it I still pretty rough. I sorted style and corrected a few facts. In the process I deleted the end references in the body of the article. I have tried figuring out how to replace and also correct/add to this. But just get more confused. So in addition to a style sheet for references (if possible) could I also have a guide for how to insert an endnote reference? (I just reread and think my explanation sounds confused - apologies for this) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caboc333 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

As a rule, external links shouldn't be inserted into the text of an article, Caboc333. See Help:Referencing for beginners for guidance on how to insert and edit references. Ideally, a footnote reference will consist of more than just a URL, but will include a title, author, date, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This is great and thanks to both editors, Cordless Larry and DES. I need to read 'Referencing for beginners', 'Help:footnotes' and follow up on the guidance abt not inserting hyprlinks in the body of an article. I seem to recall seeing this all the time, but writing is very different process (for me) than reading. Caboc333 (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Caboc333, inline external links were once far more common, but now are strongly frowned on. I still see quite a few, some in older articles not edited for a long time, and some recently inserted by inexperienced editors. Some should be converted to citations, some moved to an external links section, some should simply be removed. However, inline wiki-links which are links made using the wiki software to other Wikipedia articles, are very common and generally encouraged. Technically they are a form of hyperlink, but when you say 'hyperlink" most people here think of external links. See our guideline on external links for more details. DES ^(talk) 03:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again! Re: your comment not to have external hyperlinks in the content body. If you have time, could you look again at the konalai article. It is loaded with what I thought are external links, e.g. reference to the school and to the church. If i take editing this piece the next step, would i revise these to endnote citations. Am sure from your explanation, the ref to the census belongs in the notes. But if the refs to all those locations are links to other wikipedia articles, then i would leave them. Appreciate your suggestions and reading guidance.Caboc333 (talk) 09:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

There are no external links in the article text that I can see, Caboc333. They're usually easy to spot by their appearance - compare BBC and BBC. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: There is a coordinates external link in the infobox, but I think that is as it should be. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Reviewers Adding Categories and WikiProjects

Another experienced editor who has recently begun working AFC asked me: "What is the best way to figure out what are the best categories and WikiProjects to add to articles?" Does anyone else have a good answer, either for them or for me? Some authors have already added all of the relevant categories to their drafts. (Those drafts, being well-researched, are more likely than most to be accepted). However, most drafts, even good ones, do not have categories or WikiProjects. I generally guess, using the names of nations, states, fields of scientific study, and other obvious guesses. A newly accepted draft has two stages at which categories and WikiProjects are added, because it also goes through New Pages Patrol, and some but not all patrollers add categories and projects. (Also, some reviewers perform double duty because they then do New Pages Patrol.) Are there any other rules or guidance about projects and categories? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon. Well, there's Wikipedia:Categorization, but the main way I add categories to an article is to look at related articles and copy/modify categories and Wikiprojects from there. That works almost all of the time (it's best to check more than one article though, because sometimes you might find an article where it's been done incorrectly). Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon. I use WP:HOTCAT to more easily add categories. Click on the (+) sign after each category you want to keep. If you click on the OK button you will have to wait for the page to load and refresh for each individual category save. Continuing to use the plus sign is the fastest way to add multiple categories. Once added I like to alphabetized the categories, leaving the master category at the top. I use WP:wikEd to simplify this: I highlight all the categories when in edit mode and then click the A→Z sort button that wikEd provides. The main rule about categories is to add the most germane child category and not to add any parents to the child.

WikiProjects are a bit hard to find. Then, IMHO, you have to fill out all the template parameters to do it right. The WikiProject templates have some extensive parameters that can be found by going to the template page.

Another thing I like to add to articles is {{authority control}} and portals. I wish there was a HotCat type utility for adding portals. Might work if we had one for WikiProjects too. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the example bbc. Will check out. Need to read suggestions from yesterdy as well. Great to learn new stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caboc333 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

importing from different wikis

Hi, as in en.WP an article is missing, I would like to import it from de.WP. How to proceed Bussakendle (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. The article here would need to be in English, so you'd have to translate it. If you want someone else to do that, see if WP:TRANSLATETOHERE has the information you're looking for. If you're prepared to do it yourself, see WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Copying from other Wikipedia projects and the section after that, WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects. Of particular importance is acknowledging the source and attending to the copyright attribution. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Lapring Language

Sir, what's going on here? Can you view it once. I don't think it is a good decision. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lapring language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thitojhapali (talk • contribs) 11:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Sir, whays going in here. I don't think this is fair. Can you view it once? Why always the page created by me is deleted? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lapring_language Thitojhapali (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thitojhapali, I have moved your questions to the top of the page, which is where new Teahouse questions are supposed to be posted (unlike comments on other discussion pages). Cordless Larry (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to ask the same question in the same place three times, as you've done. (One of your repetitions seems to have been omitted by Cordless Larry when he moved them to the top.) Anyway, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lapring language is where the discussion is, and you've already participated in it. I and another editor have given some explanation as to the reason why the article should be deleted. It isn't a question of being unfair, it's a question of Wikipedia having guidelines for what it's reasonable to have an article about. Wikipedia isn't a place to publish new findings that haven't already been reported elsewhere. I understand that you're finding it frustrating, because you wrote the article in good faith and didn't realize Wikipedia has rules like that, but that's the way it is. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I removed a duplicate comment. There is no need to post a question more than once, Thitojhapali. Doing that won't get you an answer any quicker and is likely to annoy potential answerers. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest using Wikipedia:Articles for creation for any further articles you wish to create, Thitojhapali. There, you will get feedback on a draft to make sure it is up to standard, rather than risking an article being deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Thitojhapali is now under a 2 week block for sock-puppetry and the article has been deleted - Arjayay (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Editorial Comment

I have an editorial comment. I believe that what we had here for a few hours was an inexperienced enthusiastic editor who misunderstood what is meant by "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", something that occasionally happens. We know, and some enthusiastic inexperienced editors don't, that it really means "the encyclopedia that anyone (except blocked and banned users) can edit verifiability subject to policies and guidelines". They tried to edit the encyclopedia to add what I am inferring was fiction. They apparently didn't know that content must be verifiable, and they apparently really didn't know that AFD is one account, one person. A bad faith editor wouldn't have asked so many questions so enthusiastically. However, good faith is required but not enough. If the article isn't verifiable, it has to be deleted. If there is sockpuppetry, they have to be blocked, even if the puppetmaster doesn't know the rule against sockpuppetry. I am not disagreeing with the block or the deletion, only commenting on the existence of inexperienced good-faith disruptive editors who aren't trying to disrupt. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The length of the block is relatively short, probably because Thitojhapali was good enough to admit to the sockpuppetry. This allows them to return after a couple of weeks and hopefully learn from this experience and make more positive contributions in future. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It's one thing not to know that this isn't the sort of wiki where you can compose articles about products of your own imagination. It's another thing. when the veracity of the article is challenged, to lie about it. Faking votes to give the appearance of support for one's position—I can't conceive of any context in which that would be judged to be anything but downright dishonest. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I can conceive of the context. They really didn't understand that accounts are people. That is why, when accused of sockpuppetry, they admitted to it, because they had done it innocently. Those who use multiple accounts, knowing it is sockpuppetry, deny it, and CheckUser is used. They really didn't understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that User:Cordless Larry and I are saying the same thing. I think that this supports my suggestion that new registered users should be given an automatic welcome banner that includes the critical policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. I have made this suggestion at the Idea Lab. It was rejected as a Perennial Proposal, but I think that we may be at the point where both the AFC review process and the article mainspace submission process now indicate that we do need automated welcoming. The logic against automated welcoming is that human welcoming is more friendly, but the reason for automated welcoming is that new enthusiastic inexperienced editors sometimes do things before being welcomed that are innocently highly disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I don't see how that makes sense. He created additional accounts precisely to make it look like multiple people were agreeing with him (not realizing how transparent his ruse would be to experienced Wikipedians). In that way, he could look like he was "winning" the vote (not realizing that deletion discussions aren't decided by numbers alone). His purpose in creating those accounts was to deceive. The fact that he admitted it after he was caught doesn't change that. And he didn't even do that right away: First, he tried to hide the deception further by deleting the first comments by Cordless Larry and me that drew attention to his sockpuppetry. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I think a lot of it probably has to do with the editor's immaturity. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but some teenagers are more immature than others. I agree that many of our inexperienced enthusiastic editors who have more energy than common sense are teenagers. Some teenagers are very constructive editors. Some are not. For that matter, some middle-aged editors are very constructive, and some are not. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I still think that having a bot welcome new editors would eliminate some of the trouble caused by good-faith enthusiastic misdirected editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree about giving more guidance up front to new accountholders. I've suggested as much in at least one other discussion. Some people feel that trying to tell newbies too much too soon will dissuade them, in a WP:BITE sort of way. I'm not as concerned about that as I am about newbies spending time, often in good faith, creating articles, and then running into the new article patrol. To me, that seems more offputting, more WP:BITE-y. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, for a person at the age of 18 still to be surprised that dishonesty is frowned upon and can get one into trouble is a sign of immaturity. It's still dishonesty. As I said, I'm not talking about his creation of the article, I'm talking about his behavior after the deletion discussion began. Other than his naivete about the likelihood that he would be caught, none of that had anything to do with unfamiliarity with the ways of Wikipedia. He was quite consciously pulling a fast one.

I'm not arguing for an outcome any different from the one that's already been arranged. Two weeks' suspension is fine. I'm just saying that his activities can't all be chalked up to inexperience, as though they amounted to no more than stumbling over established procedures. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Himali English Boarding School

Can you please put the article back up? there was not anything wrong. It was an social organization involved in helping the victims of Natural calamities in Nepal. Please, backup the page. Thank you for your time. It was not an advertisement or anything else like that! Public were curious to know about it and I have created the page on the behalf of National organization. What had I done wrong? Just provide information to the public about an social organization. Please restore it! Wikipedia isnt for only Europe and American! Its for us, Nepali, too. Isnt it? Thitojhapali (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Thitojhapali: and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at the deletion log, it was deleted by @Jimfbleak: as non-notable and promotional. Not every organisation that exists is notable, we need evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources.

What type of school was it? Primary/elementary schools aren't generally notable enough for Wikipedia, whereas secondary/high schools usually are (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES).

Also, do you have an affiliation to the organisation? You say "Public were curious to know about it", which implies that you work for the organisation. If you do, you need to read Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest and maybe paid editing. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I was not and am not working in the school. It is a higher secondary school and its directed towards social works and life developing skills rather than book rotten teaching. Hence, I would like to call it a social organization. Its totally non-profit run by the efforts of local people. The news about the school was published by a national newspaper and I have gone to visit the school as a representative of a local media of Nepal viz. Himshikhar Television. People all over the district were curious to know about it and I had published that article in Wikipedia. But, the deletion was beyond my expectation. Sir, I think Wikipedia is the biggest library for all of the people of the world. But, I also think that the page is speedy deleted because that was a Nepali page created by Nepali wikipedian. If so, I am very sorry about it sir! And, if u can restore the deleted page, Please restore it, sir! It was fully informative rather than promotional. Its my humble request although being a Brave Gorkhali! Please sir! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thitojhapali (talk • contribs) 10:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

A secondary school should be notable, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I cannot see the article, but I'm guessing it wasn't written in neutral tone, and so was considered promotional.

Looking for sources, I've found [3] plus a few others that assert it exists.

I've asked the deleting admin for his opinion at User talk:Jimfbleak. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your comment "But, I also think that the page is speedy deleted because that was a Nepali page created by Nepali wikipedian.": If you look at Category:Schools in Nepal, you'll see that Wikipedia has many articles on schools in Nepal. Please do not accuse others of motives for which you have no evidence. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Sir, if the article was non promotional, then can it be restored? If so, please tell admin Jimfbleak to restore the page and you may view it once. Then, you will know yourself whether the article was promotional or not. I had created the article with a lot of labour sir, So please do what you can do for its restoration. Sir, please view it once and you can do anything if you also feel it as a promotional article. Please sir, tell the admin to restore only once for your view. If its still promotional I am ready to accept yours decision. Please, sir! Thitojhapali (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Thitojhapali is now under a 2 week block for sock-puppetry. A cached version of Himali English Boarding School, is still on Google, but seems to have been an attempt to support the Lapring language article (see the section above) which has also been deleted, and included "The important language of Lapring Civilization viz. Lapring Language is taught here for the knowlwdge of the children."(sic) - there is, however, no mention of Lapring on the schools web-page here - Arjayay (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Formatting query

Hi, I wanted to move the section "Senior Rabbis" on the article Congregation Emanu-El B'ne Jeshurun (which isn't up yet, so the link is below) farther to the right side of the page, so it isn't so crowded. I have the images on the left because otherwise they are right below the infobox and it looks kind of weird. Is there a 'right align' button or something like there is in Word or Google Drive? Or another way to do it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Congregation_Emanu-El_Bn%27e_Jeshurun Thanks!Jennaxel (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You must have a very wide screen if right-aligning the images put them right below the infobox. That would be the normal place for them.

The weirdest thing about the draft is that it has no lead. I suggest that you fix that (which will affect the flow of the page) before you think about right-alignment. Maproom (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jennaxel and welcome to the Teahouse. You could put the list in a table and add border spacing, see Help:Table for details. But Maproom is correct that the draft needs a lead section including a lead sentence which says what the article subject is. Adding that will indeed change the flow of the text, and may make the concern less significant. Also, the draft should include additional independent reliable sources if at all possible. See Wikipedia's golden rule. DES ^(talk) 23:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jennaxel. I have no doubt that this synagogue is notable and agree that your draft needs a lead section. Also, you need to add references to reliable sources that are not published by the synagogue itself. One possibility is this book called The American Synagogue: A Historical Dictionary and Sourcebook. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Cannot Add Content to page

Hi! Please ignore my earlier message. I am having trouble adding any new content to the page Lotti Golden. When I added content, two sets of references appear and/or I get error messages that certain citations are out of the margins. I've reverted to an earlier version of the page, so that two versions of References don't show, but I can't add any new content because of the problems I've mentioned. Help! I've been trying to fix all day to no avail. I would like to add content and link to a new page I recently added. Thank You! Magdalamar (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, Magdalamar. I haven't gone through all your contributions on Lotti Golden (because I'm tired), but I'll say that the usual problem when "two sets of references appear" is that one has added a reference with <ref> at the beginning but neglected to include the closing </ref> at the end of the reference. This causes everything in the article after the unclosed <ref> tag, including the ref list, to be displayed as a reference. Deor (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Having trouble--double set of references

In trying to add content to Lotti Golden article, I suddenly have a double set of references--one is a list, and one is formated. I noticed the second set of references is somehow tied to the Early Childhood section. I'm having trouble formatting and adding new information at the end of the page because I'm getting error messages that I will lose certain inline citations. I've never had this issue before, and tried for hours to figure out what's going on, but don't know how to fix. Help!Magdalamar (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

What if I copyedited a page and want to get it reviewed by someone else?

Hi, I'm a new Wikipedian and I recently copyedited Infibeam and want to get it verified by a second person just to see if all grammar mistakes are corrected and everything follows WP:MOS. Where would I go to get this done? The Guild of Copy Editors seems to have no details on this. If it's all good and everything checks out, I want to get the {{Copy edit}} banner removed.

Scarkrow03 (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

How do you manage your editing status?

I want to know how much editing power I have. I also want to know how to make an edit permanent. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTikiDude007 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Please respond.

WikiTikiDude007 (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, WikiTikiDude007. No edit can be permanent, as everything is subject to (possibly changing) consensus amongst editors, and of course new developments in the real world need to be reflected on Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by editing status or editing power. If you don't want your edits to be reverted then try to follow the policies and guidelines, and stop making vandalism like [4]. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep vandalizing Wikipedia as you have been and I guarantee you will be blocked from editing.   Aloha27  talk  18:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Maryn McKenna Article and Uploading Images From Other Websites

What can I do to save the Article Maryn McKenna? I need advice because this will help me in the future when creating articles. At first I didn't know I was breaking the rules regarding copyright and so the page gotted flagged for speedy deletion. However, I later went and took out the image and changed the wording to my own wording instead of the copy and paste version. I didn't know I wasn't suppose to do that. I need advice on saving an article after it's been flagged for deletions.

Also, when it comes to uploading images related to an article that I've created, what is some advice to finding an image that doesn't infringe on copyright? BookPortal (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi BookPortal. Since you've been fixing it the request to delete it has been removed. I moved the article from Maryn mckenna to correct the capitalization and added a link to her curriculum vitae (academic resume). First, everything here needs to be written in your own words. The instructions when you edit say "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." which can be confusing to new editors. Basically anything that is published anywhere, written or online, is under copyright and can't be copied. Second, besides information from McKenna's website you need references that are independent of her. What do other people and organizations say about her? Since she has received awards there should be something. Third, images can't be copied. You can take a picture yourself. You can ask whoever has the copyright to an image to donate it to Wikipedia. The welcome messages you have received at User talk:BookPortal have links to helpful instructions on how to proceed. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I have added information about two books that McKenna wrote. Additional searching may turn up other useful information to add to the article. Eddie Blick (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Who spends the money?

Wikipedia is a free website. I have seen some pictures of Wikimania. There are sometimes wikipedia meetup. In these pictures of Wikimania event, the wikipedians are shown giving lectures, they discuss among themselves. These events are organised somewhere. Who gives the rent for these rooms? They wear some identification cards. I don't know whether they have snacks or tea time during Wikimania. There are big banners about the event. Someone must be paying for the cost. Greek Legend (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

These things are a lot of geeky fun and I hope you can attend a few. Usually the rooms are free, donated by a school or library or similar institution. Sometimes our New York ones were held in the back room of a restaurant, where everyone paid to eat. Labor is mostly free; I have volunteered as a receptionist, porter, food police, and done other little things. Snacks, badges, WP:Wikipedia Day birthday cake etc are paid by a mix of Wikimedia Foundation grants and local contributions. WMF gets money from other charities and contributions from readers. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Creating a seperate page with the same title and a dissambiguation page

I wish to create a page about spiling. There is already a page about spiling, but it has a very different meaning. The page that exists is categorised in Environmental engineering | Civil engineering stubs. I want to create a page about spiling as a technique used in traditional boat building. I have reference material in "Boatbuilding" by Howard I. Chapelle ISBN-13: 978-0-393-03554-4, page 302. And others.

I think it would be misleading to add it as a second meaning on the same page as the existing Spiling page. Or would that be the right thing to do?

How do I proceed? GranbyPatrick (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

If there only two articles with the same primary title, the recommended method is not a disambiguation page, but a "hatnote" at the top of each, linking to the other, as described at at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Hatnotes. Maproom (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You will need to create an article called Spiling (boatbuilding). I recommend you create it first as Draft:Spiling (boatbuilding) first. Rojomoke (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

When i created a page and added all content with reference then why "User_talk:SuperMarioMan" deleted my page within 24 hours, I didn't get it, Please help me ?

Designprasho (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Designprasho. It would help greatly if you could tell us what the name of the deleted page was. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

That is "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithilalok" I create it daily & it has deleted daily. I didn't understand. What to do.Designprasho (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The current version of Mithilalok was created by Shailendramithila rather than you, Designprasho. Could you clarify? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

References

yes, he is my brother and he sitting next to me. First of all he tried and then i have tried also but it didn't work i have also try to talk to " User_talk:SuperMarioMan " & here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SuperMarioManDesignprasho (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The rationale for the latest speedy deletion nomination is explained at User_talk:Shailendramithila#Speedy deletion nomination of Mithilalok, Designprasho. You need to demonstrate that the subject of the article is notable (see WP:Golden rule). You also shouldn't be trying to subvert Wikipedia policies by working together with your brother. See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

thank you for your great help ...actually i don't know the all rules & regulation and method of editing or writing any page do you help me regarding this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Designprasho (talk • contribs) 09:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The pages linked to in the welcome message that I have posted at User talk:Designprasho will help, Designprasho. I suggest that you spend some time reading those pages. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Designprasho, I have moved the page to Draft:Mithilalok. You may work on it there. Plesae understand that not every orgizaton can have an article on Wikipedia. Only notable organizations, in the special sense that Wikipedia uses that word, will have articles. See our guideline on the notability of organizations. in general, there must be multiple independent published reliable sources that discuss the organization in some depth. This means not the organization's own web site or other publications, not press releases from the organization, not interviews with representatives of the organization, not blogs or fan sites, and not mere directory entries or other passing mentions. In the draft space there is time given to find and add sources to establish notability, while in the main article space you must indicate at least significance (which usually points to at least a chance of notability) at once. When you think the draft might be ready (it isn't now, it needs more independent sources cited), add {{subst:submit}} to the draft, and a reviewer will consider it, possibly after a delay -- there are many drafts waiting for a reviewer. DES ^(talk) 23:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

WWII

I remember on the old WWII page, along with full Allied/Axis country lists in the infobox, it also had main military commanders e.g. Eisenhower, MacArthur etc. But I can't find that anywhere on WayBack Machine. Help??? ToaMakuta (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, ToaMakuta. Rather than using the Wayback Machine, have you tried looking at the article history here on Wikipedia itself? See Help:Page history if you don't know how this works. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry I thought that too, but unless I´m getting it wrong, it´s not that easy. That info was in an infobox and that infobox was deleted..? [5] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Presumably the code is still there in the history of the article, though, Gråbergs Gråa Sång? Unless all of the data was kept on the infobox's page? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The data was part of the template itself, but following discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 22#Template:WW2InfoBox, it was moved into the article with this edit. Sorry for all the technical talk, ToaMakuta. Does this answer your question? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, hang on. That version is pretty much the same as the current version and doesn't list Eisenhower and MacArthur. Do you remember roughly how long ago it was that they were listed? If it's before this version of 17 March 2015, then the history will have been deleted with that template. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Of course, there´s always Commanders of World War II. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

{{WW2InfoBox}} wasn't actually deleted. It was just moved around without leaving redirects and ended up at World War II/Infobox (history). A brief history search didn't find a version with military commanders but there are versions with long lists of countries. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Archeology a la Wikipedia! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. ToaMakuta (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

AFD vote

If I nominate an article for deletion, then can I vote Delete below? --Greek Legend (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It is my understanding that !voting for Delete does not count because the closer will already have counted the nominator as offering the opinion to delete. So it makes no difference. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Since discussions are not resolved by counting votes (that's why we call them "!votes" - "not votes") but by assessing the strength of the arguments, it shouldn't make any difference. --ColinFine (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Generally any attempts to !vote in an AFD multiple times are struck through by AFD regulars. shoy (reactions) 15:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Greek Legend When I nominate an article for an AFD I usually add, right below the nomination statement "*Delete as per my nomination statement above." That makes it clear that I want the article deleted, and also makes it clear I'm not trying to "vote" twice. My habit here dates back to when the numerical count of delete vs Keep views mattered more, but I still think it is a good idea. For one thing, i sometimes make nominations as a technical matter, or on behalf of an IP editor, when i don't particularly favor deletion myself. DES ^(talk) 23:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of my first article

I created an an articel about my village. Later I copied that article and published it on my blog. It was patrolled and deleted. I actually could not find the reason for deletion of my article. Pls help me so I can reinstate my first wikipedia article. The url for my blog : http://bewori.blogspot.in/2016/03/bewori-my-village.html

Further, we don't have much articles in web-media so as to keep them as source/reference to my article. What should I do in such case?

Vivekkaryal2 (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Vivekkaryal2. It does appear that this was a backwards copyvio – you copying the content from Wikipedia to your blog, and not the other way around – though some of things you did made that not an unlikely confusion at all.

The first issue was that you copied the article from here to your blog without copyright attribution. You must provide copyright attribution under the co-licenses the content bears: the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content for how this might be done.

The second thing you did – which made it very likely someone would think it was you copying from there and not the other way around – was that you cited the blog that you copied from the article, as a reference for the article. That is pure, utterly circular, citation incest. I am willing to undelete, if you fix the blog's attribution problem (the hyperlink you provide there to fix it, following the instructions I linked above, will, of course by a dead link until it is undeleted here). Once undeleted, the citation to the blog should obviously be removed. Note that you also added some citations to other Wikipedia articles. That is also circular—in addition to the fact that Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources.

What we want you to see are citations to previously published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the topic, and demonstrate the topic's notability, the verifiability of its factual content, and that no original research is involved in the writing. Please ping me when you've fixed the attribution. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

As has been noted, it does appear that your post was not a copyright violation, because your log was reverse-copyright-violating Wikipedia with attribution to Wikipedia. I also noticed that your draft did not provide independent reliable sources about the village. The village is almost certainly notable as a government-recognized place with a population, but you are still required to provide independent reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It was too early for me to be involved in copyrights violations. I have now deleted the blog.

I won't be able to quote independent sources to my article as our local newspaper don't have a website and no person or organisation in my village use websites to publish their reports, publications etc. I wrote that article being native of the village and put my best efforts to not to include any disputable facts. Pls suggest me shall I again write the article or let me know the way to reinstate it. Vivekkaryal2 (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Vivekkaryal2: I found at least one article in the Kathmandu Post in quick google search. It confirms the date it was founded and gives some other general info that applies to all of the municipalities that were established on the same day. Maybe you're assuming there isn't anything, but you'll find more if you google it. Also, you can cite newspapers that aren't online. You don't have to link to them, just cite the title, author date, etc. Sorry I'm being nosy. I needed something to help me procrastinate what I really need to be doing. :) PermStrump(talk) 07:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to reiterate that reliable sources don't need to be available online, Vivekkaryal2. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot everybody. Your suggestions are valuable. Looking forward to write a good article very soon.

Vivek Aryal 13:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivekkaryal2 (talk • contribs)

Copy edit done on Infibeam

I just made some edits on Infibeam. Can someone check it out and if it's all good, can we remove the copy edit banner? I kept the crores and lakhs how they were, however, and did not convert them to the Western numbering system.

Scarkrow03 (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Scarkrow03. This might not be the best place to ask this, because the Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia rather than somewhere to request that other editors check articles. You might find that a Teahouse host is willing to do that for you, but there are probably better places to ask for that. Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors might be a good place to start. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Some edits

Hello, I just made some edits at Inaki Malumbres Aldave and Santa Fe derby. Can someone see if I made any wrong thing? Berti118 (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Berti118, and welcome to the Teahouse. On Inaki Malumbres Aldave I think that {{nofootnotes}} is more accurate than {{unreferenced}}, because there is in fact a general reference supplied, but no inline citations. This is not a major difference, however. I have made the change. The other looks fine to me. It is helpful to give a link when you refer to an article here. DES ^(talk) 20:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you DESiegel for your help! I wanted to help with those new articles but at a moment I suspected what I had done is an admin privilege.Berti118 (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Berti118 Very few things are actually restricted to admins, and even fewer are any part of normal editing. Only admins can delete pages (although anyone may request that a page be deleted, for a proper reason.) Only admins my restore deleted pages. Only admins may delete specific revisions from a page's history. Only admins may block other editors. Only admins may unblock other editors. Only admins may move a page over an existing page, because that deletes the target page. Only admins may move a page without leaving a redirect behind, because that is thought of as deleting the redirect. Only admins may close a deletion discussion with a 'delete' result, because the closer is normally expected to do the deletion. Only admins may edit fully-protected pages, and those are rather rare. That is about it, for things only admins may do. Not such a big deal after all, is it. DES ^(talk) 20:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

edit reverted, why ?

My edit to Main Western railway line, New South Wales 710292940 was undone by User:The Drover's Wife, why ? Entry included two corrections and 10 date updates as well as entries that aren't wrong ... Dave Rave (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, especially over whether use of a template is appropriate. You were invited (in the edit summary) to discuss it on the talk page, though the other editor has not yet started a discussion, but that page is the best place to discuss the content of that article. Dbfirs 07:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

and now that the Talk has started, he still has his head in the sand and doesn't want to learn. --Dave Rave (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

She is critical of people mass-adding templates that serve literally no purpose but to obfuscate links in wikitext, since that is a bad thing and not a good use of your time. There is nothing to "not learn" about that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no personal view about this dispute, but the best place to discuss it, as noted above, is on the talk page of the article where others can join the discussion. Dbfirs 17:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not a rail page dispute. rail ppl who understand rail pages and rail templates understand that the rwsa template makes the page, lets, see, 1200 bytes shorter, and easier to read, once you understand the thing you have never seen before. objexting to a thing that is good that you don't understand makes for an edit war and words get thrown. i'm sort of restraining myself because venting is imminent. --Dave Rave (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest making the edit, excluding the addition of the templates, Dave Rave, as the rest of it looks uncontroversial. You can then discuss use of the templates on the article's talk page. I like "objexting", by the way! Cordless Larry (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dave Rave. You might ask Useddenim for an opinion on the station name templates. He has provided User:Useddenim/Naming conventions (Australasian stations) which describes them. They seem to be used in tables and templates where compactness is important. Are they meant for general use in articles? StarryGrandma (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

My 2¢ worth: This is precisely why route diagrams are usually on a separate page that is transcluded into the main article. Besides the fact that the incredibly convoluted syntax of {{BS-map}} makes it extremely easy for an inexperienced editor to totally screw up a diagram, the helper templates (such as {{StnlnkA}} ) simplify editing and remove a lot of repetitive typing. (Why type the same name twice, and add the words “railway station” onto nearly every line of a diagramme?) Contrary to The Drover's Wife claim that they “serve literally no purpose but to obfuscate links in wikitext” do the exact opposite and reduce errors and editing time when changes are being made.
As far as their general use in articles, there’s no reason not to (and some editors do for the reasons noted above, but most people tend to prefer to stick with what they know: standard wiki markup. However, that is not “a bad thing”, merely personal preference. In the case of Main Western railway line, New South Wales, perhaps a <!--note--> explaining the template should be added to the page, to end this fight. Useddenim (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Useddenim. Thoughts, Dave Rave and The Drover's Wife? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

seems negotiations, and understanding, has failed. User_talk:Dave_Rave#Answers? --Dave Rave (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion continues at User talk:Dave Rave#Answers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useddenim (talk • contribs) 17:35, 20 March 2016‎ (UTC)

Draft:J Luke Wood

I reviewed Draft:J Luke Wood and declined it as not meeting academic notability guidelines, and said that if he did meet any of the academic notability guidelines, the draft should so state with a footnote. User:Normanbockwell asked me on my talk page:

Hi, I wanted to get some advice for the following page. It seems that he has published several books as an author, been in a couple of mainstream news articles, and has co-developed several instruments that are widely used in the college system. There are a lot of references / external links as well as the books he wrote listed on the article. Do any of them look useful if used as citations? Could that help the page to stand?

Can other experienced editors comment and advise the editor? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thank you, Robert. If anyone has any advice for this page it would be great. Thank you. Normanbockwell (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Normanbockwell. Wikipedia's general notability guidelines require that the subject to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. There are also specific academic notability guidelines that, if met, also justify an article. The article draft suggests that significant coverage of him exists, but you don't cite this coverage at present. So, do you have sources to demonstrate that "Wood is known for his development of institutional assessment instruments that are widely used by community colleges across the nation"? Can you provide citations for all of the press coverage of his research that is mentioned in the "Author and speaker" section? That will help demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry , thank you for some guidance. I'll do some digging and see what I can find. Normanbockwell (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Markostri

Thanks for inviting me to the teahouse as I presently prefer tea to coffee and I'm also new to this so, when I've fully learned the process, I can contribute in a way that I've hoped to do for several years now. My areas of interest are mostly arts related and, as artists are often mischievous, it interested me to see that some pages are blocked from editing due to vandalism and assume this is a result of either hackers or editors deliberately providing misinformation. A suggestion I could make for the future is perhaps to create a page that is devoted to such activity for some simple creative amusement but my intentions are only to provide content that may be helpful rather than disruptive and look forward to some collaboration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markostri (talk • contribs) 17:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Markostri, and welcome to the Teahouse. I also drink far more tea than coffee. Vandalism is an unfortunate but expected consequence of the policy that Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody can edit. Most vandalism is very obvious, and a great deal of it is automatically reverted by bots, but some is more subtle, and may remain for years before anybody thinks to question it.

If you're suggesting what I think you're suggesting, I can't see it working: while we don't usually know exactly what motivates a particular vandal, they're probably not very interested in doing something that doesn't annoy somebody.

There is a place to make suggestions about how Wikipedia works (as opposed to the content of articles): it's called the Village pump, and you're welcome to look and contribute there. --ColinFine (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting as vandalism is usually only effective if it's disruptive and makes a statement to bring about a change in a system that is considered too controlling. Wikipedia is clearly designed to accommodate everyone and I look forward to more contribution and shall look at the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markostri (talk • contribs) 10:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Markostri. I think you're talking about what our article Vandalism terms "political vandalism". That certainly exists, but both in Wikipedia and in the real world I think it is vastly outnumbered by other forms: see the "Motives" section of that article. --ColinFine (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

There are probably varying motives for disruptive activity and some that may have been assumed deliberate may well have been accidental or motivated by genuinely healthy inquisitive experiment that was assumed malicious at the time. I'm really only interested at present as it came up as an issue with the editing process and I think I mentioned on the village pump page that I'm new to this and am taking some care in understanding how it works. The ideas page interests me lot as it seems to provide a platform for people that may not be satisfied with what the Internet presently provides. Thanks for the links as they are very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markostri (talk • contribs) 12:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)