Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 673

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

Archive 670

Archive 671

Archive 672

→

Is removing letters/misspelling vandalism or disruptive editing?

I want to know this so I can tell if I should warn a user for Vandalism or disruptive editing. LakesideMiners (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are doing the right thing. Occasionally, an editor accidentally removes letters, so go easy on the warnings, starting at level 1, until you see a pattern of vandalism. See Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace for details. Dbfirs 19:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello LakesideMiners and welcome to the Teahouse.

The term vandalism should be reserved for clear cases of adding utter nonsense, or deleting large amounts of properly sourced material without explanation, generally by someone repeatedly doing this. There are all sorts of lesser problematic edits that may result from errors and misunderstandings that don't qualify as vandalism even if they can't justifiably be characterized as perhaps disputed content. You can safely err on the side of assuming good faith and warn the user for disruptive editing. In the end, admins will block obvious vandals pretty quickly before they can do much damage, but will often wait to see if an errant editor can be warned or persuaded into following the rules. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

While I agree with the general tenor of your posting, jmcgnh, I don't agree with the first sentence. There are clearly cases of vandalism where somebody changes something (often a date or a number) to something that is not obviously nonsense, but that with a little knowledge of the subject is clearly wrong. --ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

If there's a pattern, you may be able to call it vandalism. I remember one series of edits where an editor made unexplained changes to numbers in a large variety of articles that, on the surface, looked like erroneous data. In the fullness of time, it turned out that they were attempting to add the latest figures, just doing it badly, with no edit summaries and no sources mentioned. So I've learned to confine my claims of vandalism to more blatant instances and AGF otherwise. Some editors have better "noses" for vandalism than I do, but such an editor wouldn't be looking for advice here in the Teahouse. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay here is a real example.(I forgot if I gave the user a warning for vandalism or disruptive editing.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray&diff=next&oldid=800949617

Would that be Vandalism or Disruptive Editing? LakesideMiners (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Unclear; this might very well have been a slip of the keyboard, inserting a word at the wrong position by mistake. I'd suggest that when in doubt, assume good faith and fix without accusations. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Tropes in See Also-sections of movies.

The creator of the White savior narrative in film-article had put links to this article in every See also-section of the movies that are featured in this article. My question is: Is this OK or is this just spamming? I might think that it is the latter. I am worried that in the end, if we continue this way, all tropes can be included in the See also-section', giving undue weight to them without a proper reference. What do you think?Jeff5102 (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It is certainly not spam, the policy for which you should read. It is completely appropriate to put a link to a relevant article in the see also section of another article, and your constant removal of those links – often with no explanation given – makes me wonder if you don't have an ideological reason for doing so. Either way, I suggest you stop. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks pretty spammy to me. Maproom (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jeff5102. I don't think the creator of that article has been linking it a lot—at least not recently. I don't see much of a problem, as long as the links are relevant and not misleading. Do you have concerns that they're irrelevant or misleading? Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 15:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe they are misleading. Read the lead of White savior narrative in film, and see if you think it applies to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Ok, the authors of one book thought so; but I doubt this will be relavant for many readers of the article about the film. Maproom (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

They're not misleading. The "authors of one book" are this, with Vera being a professor of sociology at the University of Florida and the author of several other books on race relations, and Gordon being an associate professor of English at the University of Florida and a film critic. Their assessment is authoritative, not yours. You and I are just laypersons whose opinions do not matter to disqualify their assessment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I created the article. The links to the article are not spam nor undue weight. It does not qualify as spam in any way. It is not undue weight because it is literally at the bottom of the article and not in any way played up in the article body. Nobody is introducing any film as a "white savior film". I have written multiple list articles and have ensured cross-navigation of all of them, including for this topic. If there are list articles for other cinematic tropes, they should be added to the "See also" sections as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Erik, the first thing you did after creating the article, was placing a link to it in every "See also-section" of a movie-article you thought was relevant. I do believe this counts as spam.

Another problem I have is that the articles on movies you edited now just state that the movies have a relevance to the "White savior narrative," thus suggesting that movies like The Matrix, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or an even anti-apartheid-movie like Cry Freedom are movies which contain "inherently racist overtones" (as the article on the narrative states). Thus, by stating that these movies are at least related to inherently racist themes (without proper sourcing or context), the statement is not WP:NPOV.
Moreover, this was already discussed at Talk:12 Years a Slave (film)#RfC on White savior narrative in film wikilink. The final advice after the discussion over there was, that "to play it up a bit more in the text: if it is this important it might well deserve a separate subsection under "Historical accuracy" or some other place like that"; a suggestion which I endorse.
That said, some have just passing mentions in a Daily Beast-article, of which I doubt if that is sufficient for stating a bold claim like that a movie has "inherently racist overtones."
And finally, if we should include all tropes, stereotypes and stock characters (see for them in the boxes below) that are used in a movie into the See also-sections, then they would become long and tiresome, which is not beneficial for the article. See for example, again, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, which has plenty of tropes on it's list at tvtropes.org. It is a long list, certainly when you take into account that McMurphy as a Christ figure is not even included there. But on the other hand, when we only keep the "White narrative"-link, then it would certainly count as WP:Undue. Thus, in conclusion, the best thing to do is to follow the advice given at the 12 Years a Slave-page: if it all really is that important, and that well-sourced, then it might well deserve a separate subsection. But otherwise, it should go. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no spamming happening here. It does not meet any of the definitions. All sources involved are secondary and non-promotional sources, so I am not adding the link based on what I think. Also, no one benefits "in real life" from linking to the trope. In addition, you are projecting your personal feelings into this matter. When I add the soon-to-be-completed Draft:List of films featuring the deaf and hard of hearing to "See also" sections in articles, you won't care, right? So it is your perception of the topic, which has been reliably sourced, that is clouding whether or not to share it at all with readers. Your POV is not allowed to trump reliably sourced sociological classifications in excluding links as you see fit. Furthermore, WP:SEEALSO allows linking to "explore tangentially related topics", and sources connecting a film to the trope is more than tangentially related. If you want links to be accommodated with a description or inline citations, you can argue for that. Such links can be (and have been) added to the article body. However, they cannot just be shoehorned into an article body. There is no issue of undue weight when the link is at the very end of an article and even more connected to the topic than just a tangential relation (which is allowed at minimum). And TV Tropes is not a standard-bearer in any way, being user-edited hodge-podge of layperson contributions. Searching in Google Books, I found this right away. As I said before, if there is a reliably sourced list of films having tropes, then they should be shared with the relevant articles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I believe the best option is to give it a try and see if I can insert the link to the article in the text (preferable in the Reception-part). Then the See-also-section will not be too long (thus solving one minor problem), while I can use the sources of your article (thus solving a second, bigger problem). It might still be a bit WP:UNDUE, but that is for later. Erik, could you live with that? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Should editors with privileges substantiate accusations against new users?

Made an edit to an article. Edit was reverted, without sufficient explanation, and accused of violation of Wikipedia policies, with a threat of blocking.

Is there a mechanism to address these concerns?

The scar face (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

As the comment in the first line of Intelligent design says, The following wording is the result of extensive discussion on the talk page, and is supported by reliable sources. If you disagree with it, please take your point to the talk page.

When an IP ignores that and twice tries to remove "religious" from "Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument..." [1] [2] and then four minutes later a new account is created and immediately tries three times to make the identical edit [3] [4] [5], yes it's disruptive. It's also edit warring. Meters (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, The scar face. As your very first edits, you started an Edit war at Intelligent design, a highly controversial article. Any experienced editor can see your misconduct in your edit history, although possibly it was inadvertent and based on ignorance. You know now. Stop edit warring, accept the longstanding consensus, and move on to more productive editing elsewhere.

Any "mechanism to address these concerns" may well result in your account being blocked from editing. If you want to argue in favor of removing the word "religious", then make a rational, policy based argument at Talk: Intelligent design, with the sincere intention of creating a new consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Not to pile on, The scar face, but there's a distinction to be made between violating a behavioral standard and engaging in a content dispute. I see that you have opened a discussion on Talk:Intelligent design#Source's Jurisdiction which is something you should have done earlier. Your content argument would have more force if it were not attempting to change a statement arrived at by consensus. Overturning consensus requires more than an edit summary disputing the validity or applicability of a particular source.

But by repeatedly reverting others' edits you violated a behavioral standard and it was that violation that yielded warnings about disruptive editing and raised the possibility you might be blocked. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I am surprised at the answers here. So let me explain. The article does not mandate going to Talk Page. It only advises it. I checked the Talk Page and saw that the edit I was going to make did not violate the guidelines there, and then proceeded with it. I am not sure why people here are taking offense at me forming an account, which was done because multiple people use this IP. But I find it interesting that you completely overlook the fact that not only the first reversion does not cite any reason, as mandated by BRD Policy, the second reversion, is also by the same user, and this also goes against BRD.

With each reversion of reversions, I give reason as to why the reversion, as it does not provide explanation, is flawed. In any case, I did not dispute any explanation, which would be then a good reason to take it to Talk Page, but merely cited any lack of it.

I find it extremely unconducive to guidelines that I am being advised to move elsewhere or that the cherrypicked rules are being applied selectively to me. In any case, I expect leave to raise these issue at both the forums inside Wikipedia and outside it.

Thanks! Appreciate the response!

09:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@The scar face: I would also add that BRD is not a policy, but a suggested optional guidelines. It's usually a good idea, but it's not a policy. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, if that is the case, I question the idea of it being used to intimidate me. Also, it was never pointed to me before I made my edits (re-reverts) that editing, in line with BRD policy can get me sanctioned. The moment I realised that I was being charged falsely with Warring, I took the discussion to talk page. I also would note that I received two threats of sanction, and not just one.

You had made three reversions within 24 hours, plus one under your IP(not counting your original edit) Taken together that would be seen as a breach of the three revert rule and edit warring. If you are now using the talk page, that is a good thing, and I would encourage you to continue to do so to discuss the matter at hand. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The article in question has been placed under discretionary sanctions by Wikipedia's Arbitration committee, as has been explained on your talkpage. You may not be aware of what that means: in essence, any administrator can block you or topic ban you for making changes to the page which are perceived to be disruptive. These sanctions are generally "broadly construed", which means that continuing to dispute the point elsewhere on Wikipedia, even if you stop actively editing the article, could still be grounds for a block or other sanction. I mention this not to threaten you, but to advise you that you have dived face-first into one of Wikipedia's most controversial areas and need to tread extraordinarily carefully from hereon in. The advice given above by jmcgnh - that you drop the stick and move on to other areas of the site - is the best advice you are going to get regarding this issue. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule has exceptions. One of which is "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies". Now, I guess BRD is not a policy. However, I would also like to point out that Edit Warring includes this - "If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring one's edit without accommodating some aspect of the other editor's remarks is a hostile act of edit warring.". I do not see how I violated it, since I was not provided any explanation. I am fine with me being held liable for breaking the rule, though I was ignorant of it. Again, I would point out that the discussion is about ANOTHER USER not following this clear statement - "If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring one's edit without accommodating some aspect of the other editor's remarks is a hostile act of edit warring." The revision history clearly shows that. If every user is being treated fairly and equally, I have no problem. But the people here, are deliberately overlooking misconduct of others. I understand and appreciate your cautionary advice. However, because I still see it as a breach of principles and fairness, I would like the issue be addressed. Hence, I raised the question in the forum and will also look to get advice outside. Thanks! The scar face (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "get advice outside"? Do you mean at other forums in Wikipedia, or do you mean off-wiki? Neither seems very collaborative. You have the right to ask advice at another Wikipedia forum, such as the Help Desk; however, forum shopping is deprecated, and tends to be a strategy used by combative editors rather than those who want to support neutral point of view. You also have the legal right to look for other editors off-wiki. However, that is not a way to make any friends in Wikipedia, and is noticed in Arbitration Enforcement. Please pause and reconsider before pursuing a campaign. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@The scar face: There is no exception to the 3RR that includes "I disagree with the consensus". Please read Wikipedia:Consensus; basically, consensus is the end-all of WP policy. If an edit goes against consensus, that edit is a policy violation. All of our enumerated policies were arrived at via consensus, and can be changed at any time by consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

User Page

please how can I write about my information so that it can appear on Google.Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dspark9ja (talk • contribs)

@Dspark9ja: Hello and welcome. Wikipedia is not social media for people to simply write about themselves. This is an encyclopedia, with articles about people shown to be notable with independent reliable sources. Limited information about yourself, in the context of your Wikipedia editing, is permitted on your userpage; please click on WP:USERPAGE to learn what is permitted. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media, which usually shows up in Google. If you are a notable person, and have independent sources that indicate how you are notable, it may be possible for their to be an article about you, but you are strongly discouraged from writing it yourself, instead you can use Articles for Creation- but if you are not notable, please don't do so. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"‪Speedy deletion nomination of Joe Caspolich‬"

How do I notify Wikipedia that corrections to a Deleted Page has been addresses ? I copied information from "My" web page and posted it on Wikipedia. The page was deleted because it "appears to be a direct copy from http://misschicken.com/00--News/Joe%20Caspolich-MRL.htm" . I added the following note to the bottom of webpage http://misschicken.com/00--News/Joe%20Caspolich-MRL.htm

NOTE: The text of this page, is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License(unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

Joe Caspolich was an outstanding ambassador to the sport of racing. I'd like to have his story told. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobbyt (talk • contribs) 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Tobbyt. The website you link to does appear to be licensed under a CC BY SA, and it's possible that Diannaa may not have seen this when she deleted it. However, regardless of how the site is licensed, it appears to be very much like a personal memoir or a blog, and would probably not be useful on Wikipedia as a source, and definitely not as an entire copy/pased article. You should probably consider reviewing our tutorial on writing your first article, or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. TJW ^talk 14:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank You Timothy for the fast response and the good information. Looks like I have some work to do.

@Tobbyt: The Wayback Machine shows that these licenses were not on the source web page at the time I nominated the article for deletion on September 14th. javascript:alert(document.lastModified) shows that the page was modified on September 16th, presumably to add these licenses. The licenses are fine, but it's not appropriate to use your own blog as a source document for articles on this wiki. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Badly written article

Not sure where to report a badly written article needing help. ʻIolani_Palace especially Pohukaina section. The writting makes no sense. Sentence fragments, sentences that are confusing, random pieces of info that are of little importance, sections that just are not understandable, etc...

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.28.82 (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of worse articles than ʻIolani Palace. But if you are aware of errors in it, you could correct them yourself. I've just corrected one. Maproom (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

trying to write an article about a national level scholarship exam.

but i doubt that whether i should mention the name of the company organising the exam? will it be considered as a promotion of the company? Can you please help me with what i can write in the article and what not for it to get approved?

Samani.khushbu (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Samani.khushbu: Hello and welcome. I assume this refers to Draft:KCNS Exam. The primary issue is that the text in the draft seems to be a copyright violation, which is not permitted on Wikipedia; as such your draft will likely be deleted. Leaving that issue aside, you first must have independent reliable sources (click WP:RS to review what those are) describing the subject in depth that support the content of the article, that is, sources not written by or having anything to do with the subject. If you have that, it would be appropriate to mention the name of the company that puts on the exam in its article. However, promotional language like "meritorious", "to inspire the next generation", "huge opportunity for young geniuses", etcetera, must be avoided. Wikipedia articles are written in a neutral point of view(WP:NPOV). The article must also do more than state the technical information about the exam, and state why it is notable(WP:N).

If you are associated with the company putting on this exam, you may need to read the conflict of interest policy(WP:COI) and the paid editing policy(WP:PAID). 331dot (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Removing a redirect once a new page has been created

I wrote an article about the Library of Things trend that is happening in libraries and all over the world. Unfortunately, there's still a redirect in place for the search term "Library of Things" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Things) -- so when someone enters that term in the general Wikipedia search box, the result redirects to the page for "Borrowing Centers" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borrowing_center).

How can I remove this redirect, so that when someone searches for this term, it will direct to the new page? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Things)?

Thanks very much for your help!

Rkarasick (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Rkarasick.

Done When you get redirected, the page you end up on should have a little "redirected from Library of things" in the corner. If you click that you can edit the target of the redirect. TJW ^talk 17:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Super. Thank you!

134.140.159.148 (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

My article never got a visit from new page patrol

Hi, I wrote an article a little over a month ago and it was never reviewed. How can I request a review?

Thanks

WikiBear2000 (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you look at Special:NewPagesFeed you'll see that there are nearly fourteen thousand pages awaiting patrol, and a backlog of nearly seven months. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello WikiBear2000 -- For all intents and purposes, your article will get an automatic review at ninety days, if an editor hasn't reviewed it. Chances are, dozens have looked at it. Check the Page information. Rhadow (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Understood, don't meant to be impatient. I have written articles since that have been patrolled, just want to make sure it wasn't lost in the shuffle. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiBear2000 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiBear2000 Why are you so eager to see your submissions reviewed? The only reason I know of why editors want their submissions reviewed is the removal of the NOIDEX tag. Some paid editors won't receive their money until the article "shows up in Google". Is what you're trying to accomplish here? Please note that undisclosed paid editing is not allowed. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure Mduvekot (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Who wouldn't want their submitted Wiki to be found by search engines? If no one can find your article, what's the point of writing it? But thanks for your help, I will continue waiting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiBear2000 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

A creator of an article might well want it to be indexed by search engines. But there'd be no urgency about it. Maproom (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

W - You avoiding answering the direct question - are you being paid for articles? David notMD (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Seeking help turning company article to read less like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia

Looking to create an article for a men's apparel brand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TravisMathew) that was recently acquired by a large global brand, Callaway Golf, which has its own wiki entry. The brand is worthy of notoriety based on this acquisition ($160M), linking to other wiki articles (Callaway itself, sponsored athletes like Andy Roddick, James Blake, etc) and it's familiarity in the men's apparel world. The draft included viable references as well.

Any help to rework the draft page to make it acceptable to be approved would be great. 47.180.107.242 (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually based on what you have said, it should be added to the main business article instead. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 22:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

How do I respond/ correct objections to draft: Rubber Elasticity/ Integrated Network Models?

As of ~12/20/2016, I thought that we had convinced the Wikipedia editor/reviewer that our article was acceptable. In July, we received a message from 'HausteurBot' that the article ( Rubber Elasticity/ Integrated Network Models) will be nominated for deletion. Somehow we missed that email. In Sept. another notification (from Legacypac) was sent but it isn't clear what we need to do to remove the 'draft' designation. Can you direct me to the correct person or page to have a discussion about what is lacking or objectionable? Davidhanson471 (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are talking about Draft:Integrated Rubber Network Models, the messages on your user talk page tell you how to request its undeletion. You do also need to read the advice you received at User talk:Davidhanson471#Your submission at Articles for creation: Integrated Rubber Network Models (December 20), and the reply you had at User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 15#Request on 19:49:17, 27 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Davidhanson471. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

e/c Hello, Davidhanson471, and welcome to the Teahouse. First, I must ask you why you refer to yourself as "we"; Wikipedia accounts cannot be shared by more than one person. You may need to review (and comply with) Wikipedia's conflict of interest and paid editing policies.

The article you seem to be asking about is Draft:Integrated Rubber Network Models, which was deleted because it had not been edited in more than 6 months. (Please always use exact article or draft titles, so that we can help you better.) You can retrieve the draft, if you are going to continue working on it and/or submit it for review, by clicking on the red link above and then clicking the link to WP:REFUND/G13.

I am not an administrator, so I can't view the page until it is restored, but you're more than welcome to return to the Teahouse once the page is viewable by non-administrators again and volunteers here will be happy to let you know what, if anything, more needs to be done before you submit the draft again. Indeed, it seems Robert McClenon was the editor who reviewed the draft previously; Robert is a regular Teahouse contributor who I'm sure will chip in if he has the time. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 20:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the Draft so anyone can look at it. ~ GB fan 20:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Much of the content appears to be an unattributed copy of Rubber elasticity#Integrated Rubber Network Models, and therefore a copyright violation. The OP needs to read about copying within Wikipedia. As suggested at User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 15#Request on 19:49:17, 27 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Davidhanson471, it appears that what was intended was a modification to the existing section Rubber elasticity#Integrated Rubber Network Models, rather than a new article. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I am confused by the comment "Much of the content appears to be an unattributed copy of Rubber elasticity#Integrated Rubber Network Models, and therefore a copyright violation.". Perhaps that is because it was originally incorrectly submitted as a 'Creation' rather than a modification of the existing page Rubber elasticity#Integrated Rubber Network Models. The last response that I received from Robert McClenon ('...it should not be submitted to Articles for Creation, which is for the review of whole new articles. You may either post it to the talk page of the article for comments first, and then add it to the article, or be bold and add it to the article, although I recommend discussion first. I will comment more later. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)') I took the 'Bold Approach' and posted the article as an addition to the existing page. Since I did not hear back from Mr. McClenon, I concluded that the addition had not met with any further objections. I am certainly not adverse to modifying the article to satisfy the editor's suggestions- I'm just not sure exactly what needs to be done. The subject of Rubber Elasticity is of interest to a wide range of people with varying levels of scientific background. The article is intended to be useful to all. Davidhanson471 (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I don't see why you would object to the deletion of Draft:Integrated Rubber Network Models, Davidhanson471, given that it was created by mistake. Perhaps you mistakenly thought the deletion message referred to Rubber elasticity? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you want the draft of Draft:Integrated Rubber Network Models reviewed, or deleted, or what? By the way, although in Wikipedia, there is no deadline, there is a 6-month deadline in that drafts become dead if they are not edited in six months. Also, if you ask an editor about something that they did six or nine months ago, they may not be able to answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, User:Davidhanson471, who are "we"? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Tried my hand at creating a new article, disapproved. I really want to add content to Wikipedia. Please help!

Hi Friends,

I submitted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Johnson_Lifts which was disapproved.

The reason for disapproval given was "The references cited are either to passing mentions of the subject, financial transactions involving the subject, or to the the subject's own cite. None of these constitute in-depth coverage about the subject, which is required for meeting Wikipedia's notability standards."

The article I created includes links from Hindu Businessline, VC Circle, and Business World. I believe http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/johnson-lifts-upbeat-on-growth-eyes-2200crore-revenues-by-2019/article9407506.ece is pretty in depth coverage.

Can someone please point me in the direct of what sort of coverage would be workable for Indian companies? They aren't going to get many mentions in the US press, but this is a very notable and well known company in India. I'm in one of their elevators every day on the way to work as are hundreds of thousands/(millions?) of other people, figured folks would want to know more about them.

I really want to add content to Wikipedia and this was my first try. I'm crushed by the rejection :( . Please point me in the right direction if possible. Thanks!

Bobbydig01 Bobbydig01 (talk) 05:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bobbydig01: Hello and welcome. I'm sorry you have been disappointed. A company or any article subject does not have to be written about in the US press at all, but they do need in depth coverage in independent reliable sources that indicates how the subject is notable per guidelines, in this case the notability guidelines for businesses' If you click WP:ORG to review them, it will explain what sorts of information is being looked for. The source you provide above would not qualify at least as I see it; it is a basic announcement, possibly a press release, of a business transaction which the notability guidelines specifically state is not acceptable. Please understand that not every company merits a page here; even well known companies don't if they aren't usually written about in independent sources.

Please understand that successfully writing a Wikipedia article is one of the hardest things to do here. It takes time, practice, and effort. Most users who are successful at writing articles started small by making small edits to existing articles, then working their way up to larger edits, then finally to creating articles on their own. Diving right in to creating articles, as you seem to have, often results in disappointment and hurt feelings. I would suggest starting out by editing existing pages first before creating articles. However, if you still want to try to create an article, I would suggest reading Your First Article first, as well as doing The Wikipedia Adventure, which is a tutorial of sorts. Both of these will give you a better idea of what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I do not want to double guess the reviewer (Drewmutt) but I would say [6] does constitute a decent source. Not enough to single-handedly prove notability, but still a bit above passing mentions of the subject, financial transactions involving the subject, or to the the subject's own cite. I would say the current sourcing is not enough to pass the page, but by a bare margin, so some encouragement is deserved.

This being said, Bobbydig01, you have made two mistakes in the process of making this draft. First is that you uploaded File:JohnsonLOGO.jpg to Wikimedia Commons, which is almost surely a copyright violation, and I therefore nominated it for deletion; we can have copyrighted logos in articles but with very strict restrictions, please read WP:LOGO. Second, the article itself is kind of an advertisement - everything below the lead is pretty much irrelevant for an encyclopedia article. (Both of these problems are fixable though.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for assistance on editing content - template message

Hello. I recently edited the 'The Homes of Football' page, which is about football photography. I thought I edited it to a standard where content no longer read like an advertisement. There is critical response in the entry but all quotations have proper citations and are factual. As a new editor, I would like to ask for some help and response on what could be done to improve this entry to a standard where the template message is no longer necessary. I have removed all quotations and footnotes that weren't proper citations. Any feedback or help would be greatly appreciated so I can improve as an editor. The template message is below:

This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view. (September 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Encyclopediadia (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It would appear the whole article is promotional, I suggest you concentrate on the article about the photographer, as most the content is duplicated anyway. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 09:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

List of Copts - Page won't link

Hello Teahouse Members,

I appreciate having been invited here as a friendly learning space. I'm drafting Draft:Wael K. Barsoum who is a member of the Egyptian Coptic Church. I am having trouble getting the [[7]] to display correctly as a category. Can you provide some guidance? Thanks.

Hilda in South Florida (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. List of Copts is a list, not a category. Category:List of Copts does not exist. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

That means you must select from Category:Copts and its subcategories to indicate he is a Copt. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

David Biddulph PrimeHunter Thank you both for the explanations and suggestions.

Hilda in South Florida (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Contribute to Wiki

Hello I would like to contribute some pages of interest to wiki I thought wiki was basis and partial I have been looking at wikipedia pages for years and you never have any of the people, places or things that I would like to know more about for example you have Musical.ly up here but don't have VideoStar the app that started it all you have Johnny Orlando but don't have Qeuyl you allow IMDB as sourceable but don't allow IMVDB you accept fan made blogs but don't accept small magazines as sourceable information it seems to me that Wikipedia is very harsh to noobs or maybe I'm doing something wrong . Chrisbrad (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Chrisbrad: Hello and welcome. I'm not sure what you've been reading, but IMDB is not considered a reliable source as it is user-editable. I'm sure that it wouldn't be too hard to find it in articles, as this is a volunteer effort and things can only be removed if someone sees them. For information on what reliable sources are, please click on WP:RS. It is true that there is a steep learning curve to Wikipedia for new users, especially if they want to dive into creating articles. Creating articles is one of the hardest things to do here. Most new editors who become successful did so by starting small, making small edits to existing articles, then gradually working their way up to bigger edits and creating articles. You may want to consider making small edits to existing articles, which will help you learn how Wikipedia works. You may also find it educational to play The Wikipedia Adventure(located at WP:ADVENTURE) which is a tutorial of sorts to using and editing Wikipedia. If you have any other questions, please post them below. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Chrisbrad. A "small" magazine can most certainly be a reliable source, if it has professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy and correcting errors. With very limited exceptions, IMDb is not a reliable source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all your insight I will once again continue to submit my articles on the people, places and things that are missing from the wiki world Chrisbrad (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK

The next queue 6 is empty, and there are only a few minutes left for the next DYK. I think an admin needs to promote the next prep 6 to queue 6. See the bot's message at Wikipedia talk:DYK Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks like this has been done, Adityavagarwal. For future reference, the Teahouse isn't really the place to request administrator attention. We have a range of noticeboards for that, and Wikipedia talk:DYK itself. I imagine that if a queue isn't in place, then the current DYKs just stay on the front page a bit longer, which wouldn't be a disaster. I might be wrong about that, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, Cordless Larry is correct. Now that the queues have switched from 24 hours back to 12 hours again, there's bound to be occasional delays as there aren't that many active prep builders/promoters. Alex Shih ^Talk 16:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

deleted page

I tried to create a page for my grandfather who is a relative of two famous actors and had a career himself. The article ended up deleted and I hate that it was. He deserves a page just as much as his brother and sister. How can I get it to stay?

Devilsfanatic3026 (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Devilsfanatic3026. The article you wrote was deleted as the result of this debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akhtar Hussain (writer). In that debate, you wrote "I feel he has been short changed by the industry because he wasn't as well known as his more famous siblings. It is hard for me to find sources for this outside of IMDB because he wasn't as well known as them." Those sentences were really arguments for deleting the article rather than keeping it. Wikipedia has articles only about notable actors and notable authors, and this is shown by significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Since I am an administrator, I can view deleted articles. The one you wrote was referenced only to IMDb which is not a reliable source for establishing the notability of an actor. If it is true that this person wasn't very well known and that sources are hard to find, then it is a almost impossible to write an acceptable Wikipedia biography of this person. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Devilsfanatic3026 if your grandfather was involved in the lives of his famous relatives, it may be appropriate to add information about his relationship with his siblings. You may want to pursue that angle, but remember that the article needs to be about them, not him. It would only be OK to add information if it's from a reliable source and if he was a significant part of their lives, which is sometimes the case. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Submitted first article but need to change title

I need to change "SeaCamp, Big Pine Key, Florida" to "Seacamp Association, Big Pine Key, Florida" I can edit the page but not the title. Do I need to delete the first submission and resubmit a new page?

Next, I need to add it to the list of Summer Camps. Do I need to wait until the page is accepted then add it to the list page?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OddsnEnds (talk • contribs) 18:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, OddsnEnds and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that you have had an all too common experience for people that come into this big complicated system called Wikipedia and immediately try one of the most difficult tasks: creating a new article. I see from your talk page that Fuhgettaboutit has deleted your draft as a copyright violation, and explained both that and another pitfall you may have fallen into.

Please understand that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for telling the world about your company (or yourself, your school, your band, or your charity, however admirable any of these may be). People who come here with that purpose often have a frustrating time, and usually will find it better to spend their time and their effort somewhere else. When we do have an article about an orgnisation, we have very little interest in what that organisation says, does, or publishes except as reported by people who have no connection with the organisation, who choose to write about it in a reliable published source. Furthermore, we have absolutely no interest in how that organisation wishes to be portrayed: again, we rely entirely on how independent people have portrayed it, good or bad. Do you see why it does not make a good platform for promoting anything?

The answer to your specific questions is that you rename an article by moving it; but there's not usually much point in renaming a draft: when you submit it for review, the reviewer who accepts it will move it to mainspace and sort out any naming issues. And yes, do not think of adding it to the list until there is an article which has been accepted into main space.

If you choose to try again, please study your first article first, as well as the other links Fuhgettaboutit put on your user talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Notability issue with new page creation

Hello,

I am really new here, but I really want to learn. I am trying to create a page on the biggest free web hosting company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:000webhost , but it keeps being rejected. 000webhost is covered by such media networks as Forbes, TechCrunh, WikiHow, loads of hosting listing sites etc., it is really well admired by hosting community.

How do I present all the sources in a correct way, so that it pass notability rules? I have a feeling that I am doing something wrong, since this company is really big and truly notable.

I do not want somebody to fix it for me - I really want to understand the reason and get some guidance to fix the issues myself.

Thank you for your help and understanding.

Daugis1 (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Daugis1, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read the policies and guidelines linked in the message that says your draft was declined. For starters, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, so never cite them. The same goes for WikiHow. Blogs are usually not reliable sources; what makes you think that Mansoor's Blog is an acceptable source?

You can cite hosting listings, provided that they are reliable, but such passing mentions are likely not the significant coverage needed for notability.

You can also cite the company's own web page for some uncontroversial details that you cannot find in other sources, but the homepage does not contribute to notability. Notability is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic (hence the company website might be reliable, and you can cite it, but it's not independent). In order to show notability, you need more reliable, independent sources with in-depth coverage. The Forbes article is excellent, but it's just one article. You'll need more like it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

A fine line between adding notability and promotion

Hello! I am working on my first article, which was initially rejected for notability issues of a company. There are a number of articles written about the company. In particular the company has been recognized multiple times by a prestigious business organization regarding inner city businesses. It certainly is an art to add this without sounding promotional. Here is my first draft of an edit I am looking to include, any feedback would be welcome.

"The ICIC, Initiative for a Competitive Inner City , founded by noted Harvard economist Michael Porter, selects 100 companies across the US each year and recognizes them for “Illuminating the competitive advantages of being in the inner city”, including publication in Fortune magazine. Talan Products has been so recognized four times."

To me this sounds like promotional language, but adding the info that makes the company noteworthy without doing so is tricky. I do not feel the rest of the article was in a promotional tone, and I was not called out on that by the editor.

The company is included in a documentary which shall be airing on the weather channel. I do feel this company is notable, especially given other companies included in the same industry in Wikipedia ( I know, previous inclusions don't matter). I did add 6 other articles, from different sources and not mere mentions in my initial submission.

I am new, and I wish to learn. Thank you for your time and advice. ~Woodie Woodieand (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Woodieand! You're right: it is a very fine line between trying to make sure that the subject of your article is viewed as notable by readers and sounding "promotional." I find that it's important to ensure that you use neutral wording as much as possible and avoid superlatives. For example, your draft is very good, but this is how I would have written it:

The Initiative for a Competitive Inner City (ICIC), is an organization founded by Harvard economist, Michael Porter. ICIC selects 100 companies from across the US each year in order to recognize them for their work in inner cities. These companies are subsequently published in Fortune magazine. Talan Products has been recognized four times by ICIC.

Even better would be just:

Talan Products has been recognized by the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City (ICIC) four times.

If ICIC is notable, then it should have its own article which explains what it does and how it honors inner city companies.

I hope that makes sense! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Great advice! Thank you. ..and Hi Megalibrarygirl

Woodieand (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Theroadislong for the comment. I don't know how to reply to it except for here. I copied that format from several other company articles. A few of them even longer. I thought it was a bit crazy. I will work on it! Thanks for the comment.

Woodieand (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to get an article accepted and an editor mentioned coming here

I am trying to create an article on Microsoft Azure Notebooks. My draft is here: Draft:Initial_Page

It was mentioned that perhaps the Teahouse could help me to improve my article for submission

Thanks! crwilcox (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Crwilcox. Your draft is now called Draft:Initial Page. Currently, it only has two sources, both of which are published by Microsoft. What is required to write a new article is to show notability by creating references to completely independent reliable sources that have no direct connection to Microsoft or its Azure product. Please be aware that we already have a well-developed article Microsoft Azure, and one reviewer suggested that you add a new section to that article instead of trying to write a new article. Please consider that option. If instead you want to proceed with writing a new article, then please read and study Your first article, and follow all of its recommendations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. That makes perfect sense. I do know of some third party articles. I thought the sourcing direct from the site made sense but I can see the value in other sources. I will take the time to make the changes. I can likely expand further. Thank you very much for the assistance!

crwilcox (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Patronizing welcome?

Thanks so much for your friendly welcome User:WillKomen. I can't wait to start editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaraLouiseN (talk • contribs) 08:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello CaraLouiseN and welcome to the Teahouse.

Based on your edit summary, you felt patronized by either the welcome message or the Wikipedia Adventure game. I assure you, it was not intended to make you feel bad. As you get more experience with editing and start interacting with other editors, it's recommended that you - at least initially - assume they are acting in good faith. I found TWA to be a bit dumb, myself, but it did give me an introduction on a few important aspects of editing here on WP that I probably needed as I was getting started. Don't forget to sign your contributions on talk and project pages, please. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, CaraLouiseN, the invitation to the "Wikipedia Adventure" is patronising when directed at adults. Others have complained about it. You are not being singled out. Maproom (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

How do I refer to the same study in a different paragraph?

If I already cited a study, but I refer to it in another paragraph, how do I link to the same endnote? Thank you! Juliet Sabine (talk) 06:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Juliet Sabine, and welcome to the Teahouse. The way to do that is to name the original reference (<ref name=xxxx>...</ref>), and then use the same name whenever you need to refer to the same source (<ref name=xxxx/>) For more information, check out WP:REFBEGIN#Same reference used more than once. CThomas³ (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi

My father was a recipient of the Belgian Croix de Guerre with Palm in WWII, his name is not on the list of recipients, We have tried to put it on but when we go back and check, it has been removed. He was devistated that his name came off just before he died. I now need it added to the list as I believe he deserves to be noted. He was a hero and his name should be on the list. Can you please help me. Deborah76.64.204.86 (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

How do I add a name to the recipients list for the Croix de Guerre with Palm for WWII. I have tried editing the list but my Dad's name keeps getting removed. Can someone please help me........He was so excited when he saw his name on the list but when he went in to show one of his grandchildren, it had been removed. He was devastated......I really need to get this issue corrected. He has passed away and I really want his name showing for his grandchildren and the world to see...Thanks so much......Deborah76.64.204.86 (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings 76.64.204.86 (Deborah), and welcome to the Teahouse! I completely understand your frustration and disappointment that your father's name is not on the list, but unfortunately the Croix de guerre (Belgium) page is not intended to list every recipient of the medal. This is covered in WP:What Wikipedia is not. This is not because we wish to diminish your father's accomplishment, but it would be impossible to list every recipient of every medal; instead, we list recipients that are have received sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources to be considered notable in their own right. Your father's name was removed because there was no evidence given that he meets this criterion. If you feel that he does, I recommend that you start a discussion about him at Talk:Croix de guerre (Belgium). I hope this helps! CThomas³ (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out which of my sources are not credible.

My article was declined. I would like to add more credible sources to it. Would someone be able to tell me which ones aren't good sources? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:LogiGear_Corporation

Parasc650 (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Parasc650. Just a quick response (others may have more detailed feedback), but it's not necessarily the case that the sources you've used are not good or credible, but rather that they do not add up to the significant coverage that is required by our notability guidelines. What you need is sources that are independent of the subject and discuss it in some depth. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

How to add the picture of the Aircraft Warning Corps?

How do you pictures to the page of different Air Force SquadronsHawkeye195528 (talk) 05:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Hawkeye195528, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have gone ahead and added the image to Aircraft Warning Corps. You can take a look at the page itself to see how I did it. I notice that you claim that this is your own work; this is perfectly fine if you did take the picture yourself and upload it. Do you have any other information about the insignia, for instance where you obtained it, who it belonged to, etc.? That would be interesting information to add to the image file's description. CThomas³ (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The (good) answer above is "a fish", the "fishing rod" can be found at Wikipedia:Image tutorial. (But do come back if something is unclear!) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)