Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 564

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 560

←

Archive 562

→

How to get Draft accepted? (Original title: Help me out Please)

The following question was posted to Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse, so I am moving it here, and pinging DuffyClarke, Cordless Larry. Gronk Oz (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello I'm Duffy Clarke I've created a page which is Draft:Mayestron (rapper). But it my first page to create and I keep told declined people not to delete/declining it but they told me to come meet teahouse maybe they can help me out. Please will yous Help me to remove the draft line Here is the link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mayestron_(rapper) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuffyClarke (talk • contribs) 21:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

My comment is that the reviewers were pretty clear in their comments - the article does not have enough references to reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject in detail. Currently there is only one reference, which is a one-paragraph "biography" which he wrote himself - that does not qualify as independent. Try following the blue links in their comments for a better understanding of what makes a source "independent", "reliable", etc. It needs those sources - Wikipedia articles will only be accepted when the sources establish they are notable. So first, do the research to find the books that have been written about him, and the articles in major newspapers which devote substantial space to discussing him, and the significant international awards he has won - these all help to establish that he is genuinely notable. Then write the article to summarize what those sources say, and cite them as references. Gronk Oz (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Publish Something on Speedy Deletion Flag

My article on Lawyer Jeffrey Phillips, an Arizona based litigator has been flagged for Speedy Deletion. I think that the cause is that it is not notifiable on encyclopedia. However, I believe, I did not write enough content. Help me someone get it publishedJimiwriter 23:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimiwriter (talk • contribs)

The page has already been deleted (at 23:35) under criterion A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. If you believe he is genuinely notable, then your best approach is probably to build the article as a draft, building it up until it is ready to publish. To do this, follow the process at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Jimiwriter. Forgive me if this is incorrect, but I think you've mistaken Wikipedia (an encyclopedia, only properly containing entries on topics of mainstream knowledge, about notable people who have been written about substantively by reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the subject of the article) for some other type of site. The article at Lawyer Jeffrey Phillips read like a business directory entry, and if it was not deleted as it was under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, then it would have properly been deleted under section g11, as blatant advertising. By the way Jimi, please comply with our mandatory disclosure requirements for paid editing, before doing anything further with regard to this topic. I'll be leaving a note on your talk page about this momentarily. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk on my Bio Page

I am new to Wiki and they put a hold on my Bio saying something about TALK - its about - Norberto N. Mahecha (Bert) Nmahecha (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nmahecha and welcome to the Teahouse. The article you created is a biography of yourself and it is not supported with any references. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place where you can add a bio of your own. Please read the golden rule. If you would like help in publishing articles, I am more than happy to help. Best wishes Flat Out (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Need help with "This article relies too much on references to primary sources" tag

I'm trying to work down the issues on my article one at a time, but I have a question. I'm not really sure this is where I need to ask it, so please tell me if I'm in the wrong place.

The one I'm working on says this: "This article relies too much on references to primary sources"

Some of the statements have only the directory site itself as a reference.

The references which are AvivaDirectory.com references, with one exception, are verifying statements in my article like "Site submission is for a fee, but it is made clear that the fee is not for inclusion but for a site review and consideration" and "In addition, they announced an original directory structure with the primary categories containing titles with two words connected by an ampersand..."

These parts of the article are based on visually looking at the site so as to ascertain the facts about the fee, which are in the submission guidelines and, in the second instance, its directory structure."

So here's my question: Should I simply delete the references to the directory site and leave things unreferenced, if the site is the only reference?

ObadiahKatz (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi ObadiahKatz and thanks for your question. I have had a good look at this article, and its history. When you were recently provided with the text of a deleted version, you seemed to undertake to work on it in Draft space, but instead created it in mainspace. I would encourage you to move it to Draft:AvivaDirectory because it is likely to be nominated for deletion. Flat Out (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll be a few minutes -- hopefully -- while I figure out how to move it to Draft. ObadiahKatz (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Do I need to re-post my question?

ObadiahKatz (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

ObadiahKatz, I'll review it at AfC. Thanks Flat Out (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Flat_Out. But can you tell me what AfC means? ObadiahKatz (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

"AfC is Articles for Creation. Flat Out (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, ObadiahKatz. I haven't looked at your draft, but attempting to address your question above: no, generally, the site itself is not an adequate reference for any statement about the site. All Wikipedia articles should be almost entirely based on what independent sources say about a thing: for you to put information about the fee in the article, you must source it to an independent published description, or you will be putting original research into the article. I admit that this is possibly a marginal application of the rule about original research; but a big part of the reason for that rule is that a reader next week or next month or next year has no way, even in principle, of verifying the information. If you were quoting something from a printed book, the "original research" step might be small enough that it would be acceptable; but on a website, especially a commercial website, it is quite proper and reasonable for the information to change without notice, and then your statement will no longer be supported by the source you reference. For that reason, in my view you should not put it in the article without an independent source. --ColinFine (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That's what I needed to know! ObadiahKatz (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Editors with Difficulty in English (in three arenas)

I have a general multi-part question. I would like the comments of other experienced editors on proper courteous but not tedious dealing with editors who clearly have a limited command of English, not necessarily enough to edit collaboratively. I encounter editors who have difficulty with English primarily in three places. The first is Articles for Creation. The second is New Page Patrol, a different gateway for articles into Wikipedia. The third is the dispute resolution noticeboard. The first, AFC, is the easiest, because they can be declined with advice that copy-editing is needed. The second, NPP, is a little harder, because the article is already in article space (but not yet indexed until it is reviewed), and it is my understanding that bad English is not a reason to delete an article. The most common approach to tag the article as needing copy-edit (and tagging an article marks it reviewed unless one promptly unreviews it). Bad English isn’t the same as patent nonsense, which should be tagged for WP:G1. Does anyone have any suggestions for how to deal with bad English at New Page Patrol other than tagging it? I normally don’t want to take the controversial and drastic action of moving it to Draft space. The third and most difficult situation is a few editors who come to the dispute resolution noticeboard who are clearly struggling to express themselves in English. I have tried suggesting that they edit the Wikipedia in their first language, but they usually say that they want to edit in English, and they may not realize just how bad their English is. Thoughts? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the solution of moving the article to Draft space is so terrible. You're effectively forcing the editor to use something more like the AFC process in that case – justifiably so. I guess it all depends on just how bad the English is. I imagine none of us is perfect, but Wikipedians should strive to collectively maintain a high standard of readability. Here, and at non-article-space places like DRN, we can bend over backwards to try to understand what these writers are saying, but at some point it's impossible to decipher.

I guess my approach has been to say "I don't understand" rather than to explicitly say "I think your English is bad" when interacting with individual editors, but I don't hesitate to call out "poor English" when giving a reason for {{Cleanup}} tags.

And thank you for your work on NPP. I've taken a look at the queue occasionally and have very little stomach for wanting to apply for that particular permission. It's an extremely important gatekeeper role for maintaining QP quality. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't said "I think your English is bad", but I have said, "I see that you are struggling to engage in dispute resolution in English. Have you considered editing the Wikipedia in your first language?" Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Need help with article

Hi, I've recently tried publishing an article about our company but have had a push back due to it being not notable enough. Could I get a second opinion please, as I have found many other articles with less notability that have been published... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SponsoredLinX Thank you!MileenaKitana (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi MileenaKitana and thanks for your question. I have also reviewed the draft and agree that it is not ready to be moved into mainspace. The reviewing editor has made clear comments about the issues with the draft, including the promotional tone, and I would add that you have a clear conflict of interest. In the end, there is not enough written about the company by sources that are independent of it. I hope this clarifies the situation for you. Flat Out (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You say you "... have found many other articles with less notability that have been published", so you need to read WP:Other stuff exists. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi MileenaKitana. I'll try to explain better. We consider Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia. A topic gets an article if "the world" already considers the topic significant enough to write about it. We call that "Notability". You can back up information in the article using sources connected to the company, but to establish Notability you need to show that reliable sources unconnected to the company are writing about it. Right now, the best sources you have to support Notability are blurbs in "Top 100 Hot company" type lists. That has some value, but we consider that kind of list to be a rather weak source. A better source would be if news or a magazine writes about the company. The company doesn't need to be the main subject of the piece, but there does need to be more than a brief mention of the company. If you can show those kinds of sources exist, then we can keep the article and fix problems. If those kinds of sources don't exist, then there's not really anything you can do to fix that.

A big complaint about the article is that it reads like an advertisement or business listing. A big reason for that is because we don't have proper sourcing to support Notability. What we do is summarize what reliable sources have already written about a topic. If we don't have sources to establish Notability, we don't have the right kind of information to write in the article. If there were a news piece on the company, we could summarize why the company was newsworthy. We don't have that here. What we have here is little more than commercial product listings.

Regarding our other articles, we would certainly agree that some of our articles are lousy. Our worst articles should either be deleted or upgraded. We don't accept a new article just because it might be better than our worst articles.

Hopefully my explanation will help you figure out whether the article can be fixed or not. If the right kinds of sources don't exist, your best bet is just to save the current version for yourself. It's always possible that news or magazines will start writing about the company in the future. When that happens you can add those sources to the draft, then the article can have a summary of what those sources say. Alsee (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The system whereby drafts are reviewed before publication is relatively new, MileenaKitana, and the articles on less notable topics that you have seen may well predate it. The advantage of the review system is that we can be much more confident that articles that have been through it comply with policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability and are therefore much less likely to be deleted in future. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi sir I have a problem with sources.This man is from a country with no government and thus hasn't been written about widely.What should I do about sources?Mokillem (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

In that case, Mokillem, you have the same problem as the editor who asked this question about a company. If a subject hasn't been written about widely, then that subject doesn't yet get a Wikipedia article. See WP:42. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

q.e.d. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Articles

How to create good articles? Faceless Wikipedian (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I've put a few useful links on your user talk page. I'm sorry that you were frustrated that nobody had replied to the earlier questions which you had put on your user talk page, but the problem is that most editors will not have seen your questions there unless they had your user talk page on their watchlist, and in general nobody would have had reasons to watch your page. Good luck with your future editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is how to write a good article, Faceless Wikipedian. At least, this is how I usually do it. Select a truly notable topic. Read the full range of reliable sources about the topic. Select the best of them, including those that are the most comprehensive, or those that make a unique point. Format those sources into references. Identify the main facts and list them immediately before the appropriate references, in an informal outline or list of bullet points. Now, write prose that neutrally summarizes the full range of sources. Arrange the content into a logical structure of subsections, which can be chronological or thematic. Now, write a summary of your summary, which goes at the very beginning, called the "lead". Base the structure and style of the article on Good articles and Featured articles about similar topics. Do your best to comply with our Manual of style, and spell check and fact check your work. Look around at Wikimedia Commons for appropriate images, or take photos yourself and upload them there. Add the images at the appropriate points in the text. After completing these steps, you will have created a useful contribution to the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if this is the right place to ask ...

But if you don't mind, and you have time, would you mind reading an article I've been expanding Deseret alphabet? I like to edit some *ahem* obscure topics and don't really know how to get feedback from other editors than by making WP:GA nominations...but I did that prematurely with West Coast Customs and so promptly failed. (I took it in stride though and am currently waiting for GA2!)

The problem is GA nom reviews can take a long time. I think I've done a really solid job with this article, but, I just want to know what another editor thinks. Any advice welcome!! :)

You should also know that I have a few sections planned also before I was planning on a GA nom ... "Motivations", which will explore some of the speculation in the reliable sources as to why, when the Mormons were faced with the realities of frontier life and actual wars they focused on making an alphabet, and "Handwriting" where I will lay out two (only two, one printed and one cursive since besides these two styles different writers write very similarly) of the handwritten versions of the alphabet in the Deseret corpus in the LDS Church Archives. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Psiĥedelisto. Sounds like you may be a good fit for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics. TimothyJosephWood 17:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto:I ain't no Inglish major, but I did enjoy the article. I got 2 ephiphanies from it. This sort of strange new alphabet must be the secret to the voynich manuscript. Second, who knew that h was an aspirated vowel! 2 problems: dead link to the guy in this line "early Mormons, such as Thales Hastings Haskell, began writing their personal journals" and to the utah c in "During the 1996 Utah Centennial celebration" DennisPietras (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks :) Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Psiĥedelisto, a good alternative to a GA review is WP:Peer review. There is no pass or fail in that one; just feedback. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That seems to be exactly what I was looking for, I didn't know about that page. Thank you, it is a good place to go before WP:GA

Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Lost a page i was creating??? I can't find it-

Lost a page i was creating??? I can't find it- I never published it but did a lot of work on it, can anyone help me find it? I am sure i never published it. it has been months since i loggged on and i was going to finish itMCSFBn (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

You can find all of your contributions by clicking on the "Contributions" link at the top of any page. This will lead you to Special:Contributions/MCSFBn. I see no sign of any unpublished draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your answer.......... is it possible another user deleted it for some reason?MCSFBn (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

An admin would be able to confirm for sure, but it doesn't look like it to me. Athe the foot of your contributions page there is a link called "Edit count", which links to https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=MCSFBn&project=en.wikipedia.org. In there the "Pages created" link should show any pages which you created, including any which have subsequently been deleted. Additionally it would be usual that if one of your pages was to be deleted you would be given notification on your user talk page. Of course, if you were editing while logged out, or while logged in under a different user name, it wouldn't show under your contributions. If you know a title, or even a distinct phrase which you would have used within the draft, a search might find it. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@MCSFBn: Your account has no deleted edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

EnterpriseyBot?

When did User:EnterpriseyBot take over WDefcon?

T P M 17:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi T. On January 11, 2016‎ ‎the bot made its first edit to Template:Vandalism information. See here. The next day, the 12th, it was approved for a fifteen day trial run, and was approved for full operation on February 27, 2016. See‎ Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/APersonBot 5 (under the bot's former name). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit: Interesting. I guess I didn't see the name change until recently. Thanks! --The Phase Master

T P M 14:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Double Equal Signs Don't Seem To Work

I'm baffled! I understood that in order to make headings, I needed only to put two equal signs at the beginning and two at the end of the text. I understood that would create a table of contents if there were four or more.

I put in the first two at the beginning. Good. It made the type bigger and put a line under it.

I put two after the words, and nothing. Not good. So now it looks like this: "History==" and "Software==" just to show you two.

There is no contents.

What am I doing wrong? ObadiahKatz (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi ObadiahKatz, welcome to the Teahouse. Your only recent edit is to Aviva Directory but had no equals signs. Maybe you previewed without saving. That makes it impossible to see what you did wrong but I have made headings now.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I guess I'll have to do another article beforeI can figure out how I goofed! :-) ~~

@ObadiahKatz: perhaps you could put the troublesome material into your Sandbox (User:ObadiahKatz/sandbox) and let us know, so we can see specifically what is happening and advise you. --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If you insert "== History ==", then that will produce a header. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Try the visual editor!!

I love it. I used Wikipedia for eleven years, but never edited it until the visual editor was introduced and working well. Wiki markup is a big hassle, but after using the visual editor extensively I started to get the hang of the markup also. It's not even a hassle because it's "hard", it's not that hard really. It's just so different from BBCode, Markdown, and so it's a lot to remember/mess with. Also plain text does not translate well to article, it's very hard for me to visualize how an article will look just by writing in markup. I've done major expansions to Vladislav Surkov, West Coast Customs and Deseret alphabet (almost) entirely with the visual editor. It's true that most experienced editors don't seem to use it, but it's really awesome, give it a try

Psiĥedelisto (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey ObadiahKatz, I'm The Phase Master. I'm assuming that at the moment, you are using Visual Editor. With VE, you don't need to place the two equals signs after the heading. VE automatically does this for you. In this case you'd type:

==Title

But replace Title with the actual title, like:

==History

Hopefully this helps.

--T P M 15:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

How to make large changes to an article over days?

Hi. I've been making relatively small changes to small sections of an article while keeping the article basically intact, but I've gotten to the point where I feel I need to tear down the rest of it and reassemble it in a better way over the course of days. (yes, I type slowly!) I'm thinking that one approach would be in edit mode to copy all of the text for the problematic section, paste it as a duplicate after the original section, and between the 2 sections have a notice in big bold letters "the rest of this page is under revision". That way, I would be able to see the changes I'm making, and readers would still be able to read the current article. Is that acceptable? Is there a better way to do that sort of mass editing? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello DennisPietras and welcome (back, I think) to the Teahouse.

Please don't try that. Wikipedia articles should appear at all times as final drafts, even though we know they are never completely final. If you wish to completely restructure an article, one approach is to make a copy of the article in your user space (it's important to place NOWIKI tags around fair use images and any categories before you save it in your user space). You can then perform your edit in peace until you get the article to the state you want it in.

Now comes the hard part. You can't just paste your new version of the article on top of the old one if there have been edits during the interval. It's your responsibility to structure your edits so that other editors' work (work that hasn't been reverted) is preserved. You can structure your edit as a series of "moves with modifications", such that the history shows one chunk being deleted and a (hopefully) corresponding chunk being added at a different location.

To keep other editors watching the page from freaking out, it would probably be a good idea to initially place a note on the Talk page of the article and indicate your intentions, with an invitation for them to view your draft-in-progress, then update that note when you're about to start making your moves. There is no way to lock out other edits, so you'll have to deal with any edit conflicts that arise.

I realize that this sounds like extra work when you've already declared that you type slowly, but this way preserves the quality of the original article throughout the whole process. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi DennisPietras. With respect to what jmcgnh posted above about copying articles into your sandbox, I suggest you take a look at WP:CWW. Even though most of the content you find on Wikipedia has been released under a free license, copying stuff from one Wikipedia page to another still may be considered copyright violation in certain cases. You should probably be OK as long as you add a link to the original source page in your edit sum when you add it to your sandbox. Also, you do need to be careful copying any files into your sandbox and make sure they are not non-free content. Non-free content is only allowed to be used in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9 and may be removed from user pages per WP:UP#Non-free images. Lots of editors copy and paste content which includes non-free files into their sandbox simply because they are not aware of the relevant policy. Occasionally, some of these editors get angry when those files are removed, but we as editors do not own are user pages and they technically can be edited at anytime by anyone just like articles. Finally one more thing, if you are planning on doing some extensive work on an article, you might find the template {{In use}} and {{Under construction}} helpful. These templates can be used to let others know that the page in question is currently being worked on by someone else. This won't prevent another editor from ignoring the template and trying to edit, but an experienced editor will more than likely wait until the template has been removed before making their edits. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh and Marchjuly:I've been discussing my previous edits and proposals on the article (pseudogene, btw) talk page, and will continue to do so. The "in use" and "under construction" templates are going to be perfect, assuming I can figure out how to use them! 8-) Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

can somebody verify this soccer-player's name please?

enWiki has Dávid Bobál but Hungarian wiki says hu:Bobál_Dávid, and news.google.com suggests that latter ordering is correct. I don't know how to speak Hungarian, however. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

There's no inconsistency. Hungarians write their family names before their given names. Maproom (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, I thought it was just a mistake, but it is an intentional switcheroo. Here is the relevant guideline-snippet: "With Hungarian names, use Western name order". By contrast we sometimes use Sun Bin and similar where surname comes first. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

How to find a user with no COI to remove template messages from Actin_(Software) article.

How to find a user with no COI to review and remove notability and advertisement template messages from Actin_(Software) article. B235R (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

B235R, will look into it and see if I can give you some assistance. Other eyeballs also welcome, of course. I am finding little sourcing at news.google.com (about three relevant pieces), but roughly two dozen at scholar.google.com stretching back to roughly 2011, including e.g. NASA and IEEE. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The article certainly looks like an advert at present. That impression could be reduced by removing the huge machine-generated animation of a robot operating. Maproom (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

47.222.203.135 and Maproom. Until recently, this software has been used primarily on projects that can't be disclosed to the public, so the lack of other articles online is not surprising. The large animated .gif of the robot on a mobile base was actually a screen capture of Actin's real-time control and not just an animation. It's hard to document the notability, but I have removed the screen capture gif to avoid appearing as an advertisement. Thank you both for the help.B235R (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

nerf modding article questions

hi, I started an article about modifying nerf blasters, shortly after it got deleted. Can someone help me with improving it so it can be an actual article or tell me how I can add information about this hobby to wikipedia? help will be greatly appreciated -AnOoB AnOoB02 (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I would love you help you in editing your article. Message me back if you would like me to. I can proof read your content before you decide to publish if this interests you.SarafinaN 17:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarafinanicole (talk • contribs)

@AnOoB02: please read Wikipedia:Your first article, your previous attempt was deleted after discussion as to whether or not Nerf modding is a notable topic suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. The decision reached was that it isn't so that is a major hurdle you have to overcome in trying again. You need to locate significant coverage of the topic in independent, reliable sources so this rules out most blogs, fansites, youtube instruction videos etc which I suspect makes your task a lot harder. You might want to try something easier first like improving the article on Nerf Blasters themselves which is desperately under-referenced. Nthep (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nthep

yes, I could indeed do that. I would say it is quite a notable topic with thousands of modders in the USA, Australia, Singapore, Germany, the Netherlands etc. The problem is that there are almost no "reliable sources" according to wikipedia because it is mostly based on informal media like the examples you gave.

AnOoB02 (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@SarafinaN

Yes i would like that, I don't know if it is possiblen to get information about this on Wikipedia because of the problems with sourcing. In this situation WPs rules are kind of limiting :(

AnOoB02 (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Edits reverted and not sure why

I was trying to be helpful and links to orpaned articles on other pages, but my edits are being reverted. Why? Vermelhamesa (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Just looking at your most recent edit as an example, you removed the orphan tag, but the page is still an orphan; clicking on "What links here" gives Special:WhatLinksHere/Birthday tree which shows that no other articles link to Birthday tree. That's why the edit was reverted. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Just as an aside, typically when someone reverts, they should provide a reason for the revert, so as to avoid the situation you have currently where you don't know what the heck you did wrong. Justin15w (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Going on to the next one, you tried to link from Paul Fleischman to Birthday tree, but the latter page is not about the children's book to which the former refers. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Another observation: In multiple articles, you linked Birthday tree to Fleischman's book The Birthday Tree. But the topic areas are different; Birthday tree is about the actual birthday tree, and not specifically about the book, which may confuse some readers. That is probably the reason Mean as custard reverted. Hope this is helpful. Justin15w (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Similarly Birthday tree is not about the song by Sons of Butcher (band) where you tried to include a link. Before you include a link, you need to make sure that it goes to the correct page. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

How to have my Wikipedia entry approved?

DPLopes (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Hello everyone, I have been trying to follow the recommendations I get every time the Wikipedia entry I have been trying to submit is declined. Most of the comments emphasize the entry has too many URLs and links to primary sources or similar institutions. Well, if I can only prove what I write by pointing to external links, how can that be against the rules? Another question: How can one say that I am pointing to many primary sources or similar institutions when in fact it is not the case? I definitely need some help to have my entry approved, otherwise I don't know how I can I get to that level to be honest. Thanks much for your contributions in advance! Best, Daniel P.S.: The entry is named "Draft:Connect4Climate".DPLopes (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Daniel. I'm sorry you're having a tough time. Unfortunately that is often the experience of people who come to Wikipedia as new editors and immediately plunge straight into possibly the most difficult task there is: creating a new article.

I have removed the {{external links}} template, as that does not seem to be the case any more. But there is still a problem with your references, that most of them are only a URL and a title: that makes it harder to see the origin of the source, and evaluate its reliability and independence. What is important in a reference is that it gives enough information for a reader to find the source, which doesn't have to be online: giving a URL is a convenience to help a reader, but is in a way the least important part of the reference. I see that you are often using templates such as {{cite web}}; but you are often leaving out the most important parameters: the publisher or organ, and the date. Please see referencing for beginners.

The grounds for declining your submission are every time that the references do not establish notability. I have not looked through them to comment on this myself. But I would point out to you that not one thing that the organisation (or any of its employees or associates) has published can contribute to notability - and that excludes not only the organisation's own publications, but anything which is based on an interview or press release. Most of the references need to be to substantial writing about the organisation by people wholly unconnected with it, and published in reliable places. As SwisterTwister said in September, "Focus with only the best in-depth third-party news, and please no press releases, trivial passing mentions or interviews". --ColinFine (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with ColinFine, but would add that you can use reFill to fill in some of these details automatically. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Article Not Approved - First Article Advice

Hi there! I am having difficulty getting my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Faculty_Management_%26_Productions approved. I have made several rounds of edits, and added additional reliable sources but I am still not getting anywhere with this approval. Having worked on this page since November, I am very frustrated that I keep hitting a wall with this. Would appreciate any advice on additional changes I need to make to get this pushed through. Thanks! ELP123 (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that the wall you are hitting is that the subject simply isn't notable, and that there's nothing you can do about it, however much you try. Maproom (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

add item to bibliography - cite primary, secondary or both?

When adding an item to a bibliography, is it best to cite primary ref (in this case, magazine name issue# date etc.) or secondary source (where I downloaded from if respectable, or other reliable site giving full info) OR both? All three?

Specific Case: I downloaded a short story "The Masked World" by Jack Williamson from Project Gutenberg; the story is not in the Jack Williamson article's biblio. Most of the items in this section have no refs, but I like to improve where I can! When I add the new item, should I cite 1)original publication data 2)source (Project Gutenberg, which has extensive info) or 3) a tertiary source such as an independent biblio of Williamson? I don't to overkill such a small item, but want to cite something! D A Patriarche, BSc (talk) (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

PS have added it to Jack Williamson#Short stories with ref to Project Gutenberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by D A Patriarche (talk • contribs) 22:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Based on what Deor said on User talk:D A Patriarche it appears this was resolved.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Mark as patrolled?

I remember on pages (such as user pages), you could mark that page as patrolled. I don't know what it was for, but I do know it was there, but I can't find it anymore. What happened?

--The Phase Master T P M 14:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The ability to mark as patrolled is now limited to a select few users with a new user right; see WP:NPP. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If you were a prolific patroller before the creation of the right, please, request it. We don't have a lot of patrollers and there's a huge backlog. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 00:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

undelete

I need a copy of my page of even better have it restored. @JzG deleted it because the creator was removed or blocked. My page is still relevant and was up for three years.

Emit - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emit

Emitdfatt (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Emitdfatt you are talking about Emit (artist) not Emit as you linked. as it was deleted as an G8 you could maybe ask at WP:REFUND or could ask the deleting admin JzG. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes Emit Artist. Deleted by JgZ who is no available to be contacted. The reason for deletion was a banned or deleted author. That has no relevance to my three year old page. My page is still valid.

Emitdfatt (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

You don't appear to have attempted to contact JzG at User talk:JzG, Emitdfatt. That should be your first option when trying to contact another editor. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

His talk page is not available.

Emitdfatt (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that the page is semi-protected, which means you won't be able to post there until your account is a little bit older. JzG should have received a notification about this discussion, so will hopefully respond here. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry I accidentally made a new blank page trying to figure out this website and contacting to restore my old page. It was three years old and should not have been removed. Emitdfatt (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The article was deleted as a purely procedural matter under WP:CSD#G5 and must not be restored. Aside form anything else, it seems very likely that the subject or someone connected with them paid for the article to be created, and it's very likely that the same party was responsible for maintaining it as virtually no substantive edits other than housekeeping were made by Wikipedians with any history outside this article. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, JzG (Guy). Cordless Larry (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Raising an inconsistency in an article

I've noted an inconsistency in an article (Burke, NSW. Text says max temp 49.7C, but following chart show max as 48.3C ?). Not sure I should edit, as I don't know which is correct. Is there some way of flagging this to the "author" to review?? Ian Cargill 02:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icargill (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Icargill. You are as much an author as anyone else here. Take a look at the sources that support the contradictory claims. Are they truly contradictory or are the parameters a bit different? Are there other sources available which support one or another of the figures? Will a formulation like "some reliable sources say X, but other reliable sources say Y" help clarify the point? Wikipedia editors should be bold and try to pitch in to solve such problems when we see them. At the very least, you can post a detailed description of the problem on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Ian Watkins reversion

I made multiple edits to Ian Watkin's page all of which were accurate

The source has now been reverted to a much shortened version I wish to challenge it? BPJones90 (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This is about Ian Watkins (Lostprophets). BPJones90: the material you added was all unsupported by references. You also deleted referenced material, without explanation. Wikipedia greatly values references, and the edits you made were quite properly reverted. Maproom (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Help creating a page

I have been working on a page (DavidGSmith/sandbox) and was not approved due to unreliable sources. The comment provided said "YT and SoundCloud are not RSes." I'm not completely sure what this means. I'm new to creating a page on wikipedia and would like some more clear direction on what I need to do to edit my page for re-submission. Thank youDavidgsmithmusic (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Davidgsmithmusic: "RS" stands for "reliable source". Maproom (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Davidgsmithmusic: You seem to have a more significant problem, in that you have written the article about yourself. This is strongly discouraged because, in spite of the best intentions, it is not possible to be objective and balanced about oneself. There are strict controls over autobiographical articles - see Wikipedia:Autobiography for details. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Television in Romania

Hi, we've got 2 IP editors adding large unsourced copy-paste from https://www.tvchannellists.com/List_of_digital_channels_on_UPC_Romania to Television in Romania which would appear to be against WP:NOTTVGUIDE the reason tvchannellists.com was set up according to it's own about page. I reverted a few times, but since others have just corrected formatting etc., so rather than revert I thought I'd flag for another opinion. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi KylieTastic. If you suspect a copyright violation, then I suggest following the instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. If the editors have been persistently adding the material despite being reverted, then consider reporting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Given that the editors don't have accounts, semi-protection of the page would also be effective. That can be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that since the material is not a simple alphabetical list, it is copyrightable. I have removed it and warned the IP not to re-add it any more. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

User pages in other languages

Is it appropriate to create you user page in multiple languages? If so, how do I link them together like other Wikipedia articles? Vermelhamesa (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Vermelhamesa, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, it is approppriate to do so, particularly if you are also active in the Wikipedia editions of the other languages. Different language Wikipedia articles are linked with one another through Wikidata, but if you want to link user pages (in the sidebar), you have to use a trick that was historically used for articles as well: add a hidden link to the page. If you wanted to have a link on the Russian-language userpage of your account, add the following code on your English page: [[ru:USER:Vermelhamesa]]

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Vermelhamesa: Instead of or an addition to local user pages you can also make a global user page (usually in English) which will be displayed in all wikis where you haven't made a local user page. See meta:Global user pages. If you don't edit a wiki then there isn't much reason to create a local user page there. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Alexandre Mars's Wiki page

Hi all, awhile back this community had lent me a hand with editing Alexandre Mars's wikipedia page. I've been back and forth with a bunch of the editors because I have a COI and they think that all of the well-sourced changes that I was making were purely unethical. I have since been banned from editing the page directly and can do so only through the talk page, which is fine. But the editors now seem to think I'm being demanding in asking for their help to edit the page, and are not reviewing any of my suggestions. I would be really appreciative of any help that you all could give me as this page is now a mess.. I wanted to update it to add a couple of recent facts, and now they've killed half of the sections and refuse to add in the information that was previously on the page to begin with. Thank you! Jennepicfoundation (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a misleading presentation of the facts. You have a COI, we have restricted you to the talk page, which is quite a concession (normally you'd have been topic banned). You have proposed changes, but others have reviewed them and rejected them. You are now forum shopping, trying to get someone to do your work for you, rather than doing what you should do, which is to stand back and let others make the judgment calls. Of course you're going to dispute those calls, that's pretty much why we have the COI policies in the first place and definitely why you have been excluded from making direct edits. Insisting on ownership despite that is not in the spirit of your editing restriction, and if you carry on like this, you will end up with a full topic ban. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought this was the "Teahouse! A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia?" I was actually suggested to come and bring my problems to this community page a year ago soooooooooo......??????Jennepicfoundation (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't abuse people's good faith and you won't get called on it. If you had stated this in neutral terms then I would not have said anything. Using spin to try to recruit support from nice people, is rather unpleasant, don't you think? Guy (Help!) 16:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

moving a draft to article space

I have a draft of a new article on my userspace sandbox (rgschroeder12). How do I move the draft to article space and title it Operations Management: Services?Rgschroeder12 (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You have already moved something into article space with the title Operations Management: Services; but it clearly isn't intended to be an article. I would have tagged it for Speedy Deletion, but it doesn't fit any of the categories.) Maproom (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I have moved it back to User talk:Rgschroeder12/sandbox, as it had obviously been a mistaken move. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thrinacia Platform

Id like to create a page about how Thrincia revolutionized DIY Crowdfunding is this possible? The page will be called the Thrinacia Platform.

203.87.133.195 (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You can create it at Draft:Thrinacia Platform. Be sure to place {{subst:AFC submission/draftnew}} on the top of it. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Greetings internet user, welcome to the teahouse. Just to add to the above comment, while that is the appropriate place to start an article, the way you described the article sounds like it may be what Wikipedia considers a Point of View style and also Original Research. I suggest you take a look at this article: wp:POV and this one wp:OR Remember that all Wikipedia articles are supposed to be objective. So if you have good references that say Thrincia revolutionized DIY Crowdfunding then you can say that but the language should probably be a bit more neutral or specific. Not just that it revolutionized crowd funding but what were the specific changes to crowd funding. Also, if there are more skeptical or critical views of Thrincia those need to be included as well. And if Thrincia hasn't been discussed in what Wikipedia considers good references then its not yet appropriate for an article at all. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

getting speedy deletion tag

help meKekra (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Blatantly promotional language, no footnotes, no independent reliable sources. It would have been wise for you to read the links in the welcome message which an editor placed on your user talk page in November. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

"Also known as"

How do I add "Also known as" in the artist's profile badge? Songuitar333 (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Songuitar333. I assume by profile badge you mean the infobox at the top right of the article. I believe the proper way to do this is to add:

| alias               = PUT ALTERNATIVE NAME HERE

Note however that although the infobox usually appears at the right of the article when displayed, the markup for the infobox is usually physically at the very top of the article when viewing the source. TimothyJosephWood 13:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Songuitar333 (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

YouTube uses wikipedia for video game metadata/verification, have chicken-egg problem

Hey there. I'm Scott, one of the developers of The Wild Eternal. I've recently learned that YouTube combs wikipedia for metadata to verify and enable content creators to properly tag their content.

The video game industry is in a weird place right now: traditional press are dying and streamers/content creators are proving very useful. Grassroots, small-to-large approaches of outreach is a known successful pattern of raising awareness and gaining exposure.

Naturally, this means we need to have our game listed on wikipedia to give those content creators the tools they need to promote us properly.

That said, notability, room for growth, and conflict of interest questions immediately arise and I'm not sure how best to navigate the situation. Gaining notability will be easier if we enable our content creators, but to do so within wikipedia's guidelines requires already having notability. Chicken-egg problem.Scottgoodrow (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Scottgoodrow. It's only a chicken and egg problem if your goal is to promote the game. Since that goal is not shared by Wikipedia, the answer is fairly straightforward: if the subject meets Wikipedia standards for notability then it is suitable for an article. This usually means demonstrating that the subject has received sustained non-trivial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If these standards are not met, then it is not suitable for an article at this time and is liable to be deleted.

Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, meaning that we only cover subjects that have already been written about, and don't cover subjects which haven't, even if they are very likely to be written about in the future. You may consider having the article moved to a draft, in order to have some time to work on it, and then submitting it through our Articles for Creation review.

Since you have a conflict of interest, you should also have a careful read of our conflict of interest policy. Failure to abide by this policy may result in the loss of editing privileges. TimothyJosephWood 20:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You make a great point. As you can tell, I am new to being a wikipedia contributor. I appreciate learning what wikipedia's intentions are and how best to comply. I will take all of your advice and take care of the problem. I will also reach out to Google/YouTube to tell them that their metadata sourcing idea is maybe misfounded. I don't expect they will care, but it doesn't hurt to try. At the very least, they shouldn't be setting up rules that encourage users like me to create our own pages here, for all the reasons you've explained to me. Thanks for the help!Scottgoodrow (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Scottgoodrow, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are correct: having a Wikipedia article on a product probably helps attract the attention of the press (or what's left of it), but having coverage in reliable third party sources is a preprequisite for having a Wikipedia article in the first place. This is true. But this is neither our nor our readers' probem. It might be a problem with your industry – the weird palce it is in right now. Or it might be a problem with the press – what we call systemic bias, though belive me there are topics that are far less represented; actually video games are overrepresented on Wikipedia due to abundant coverage in sources that its userbase reads. There is really nothing wen do about the problem you dsecribe, because it exist outside of Wikipedia and – for very good reasons – we are not going to do away with the notability requirements.

As Timothyjosephwood notes above, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability; some topic become notable only years or decades after their inception, when research and other coverage is publishded about them. My favorite example is Vincent van Gogh who probably wouldn't have been notable in his lifetime because his fame was largely posthumous. Obviously this approach does not cater to the needs of an industry that is reliant on timely return for its invetements, but neither it should. By the way, we have very extensive rescources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Finnusertop for the further clarification and the useful reference material. I'm glad to better understand this resource that I use daily. Cheers to you both, I'll fix my mistakes.Scottgoodrow (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

And thank you for being so reasonable and understanding about this, Scottgoodrow, because many editors with a conflict of interest are not! Cordless Larry (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

My page

I made a page for a New Religion and you guys are wanting to delete it thats not right...Jumuty (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jumuty. I'm afraid it is right that Jumuty is deleted, because you appear to have made it up. Wikipedia only has articles on topics that can be verified to exist and are notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I did make it and many people agree with it look up the facts ive been study all three religions for a while now i came up with this and you guys are just going to tell me im not good enough...Jumuty (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jumuty. It has nothing whatever to do with you being good enough or not. It has everything to do with the type of reference work that Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compendium of mainstream knowledge about topics already reflected out in the world by their prior, direct publication in reliable source. By its very nature, an encycopedia is an inappropriate type of reference work to include your original research.

You are like a person wanting to publish a map at a dictionary project, that by its nature, does not take atlas material, or the opposite, to have a word definition inserted into an atlas project – that by its nature, does not include dictionary material. When told "...but we are an atlas, and don't take word definitions", you are the person responding: "but why don't you want my word", when you've already been informed that atlases only include maps. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Asking question as new editor

How do I correct an article that falsely uses sited material? Specific to patented inventions . — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaHowitzer (talk • contribs) 00:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DaHowitzer. The operative principle here is Be bold. If you see an article that does not accurately summarize a cited source, then edit the article so that it better summarizes the source. If your edit is reverted, discuss the matter on the article's talk page, explaining clearly why your changes are an improvement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

How to sound Neutral?

Hello, I have submitted the same draft for review at least three times and have been told that it sounds promotional twice when declined for submission. I am still lost on which parts sound promotional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NeheScar/sandbox?action=edit NeheScar (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NeheScar. Pretty much every sentence in your draft has a promotional tone, though I have seen worse examples. It reads as if it was written for the company's website or a company brochure. Wikipedia is not Facebook or LinkedIn. It is a neutral encyclopedia. Editing for rigorous neutrality should be your goal. You should not repeat evaluative language from your sources in Wikipedia's voice. Perhaps the article from The New York Times is your best source. But you should not simply repeat their evaluation in Wikipedia's voice. Instead you should write something like, "According to a reporter writing in The New York Times, so and so". New editors should strive to bend over backwards to write as neutrally as possible, especially when writing about topics that they care about deeply. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)