Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 394

Archive 390

←

Archive 392

Archive 393

Archive 394

Archive 395

Archive 396

→

Archive 400

How can I move a page created in my sandbox to a main article

Hello,

I would like feedback on the first article I have created under User:Lumeigpo/sandbox/Ignacio Barsottelli and how can I move this article from my sandbox to a main article. I've seen a video with explanation and under User:Lumeigpo/sandbox/Ignacio Barsottellibut it does not appear the "move" tab in the upper right of my page.

Please I need help! Thank you - Lumeigpo Lumeigpo (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Lumeigpo and welcome to the Teahouse. You can't move a page until your account is autoconfirmed. This happens after your account has been used for at least 10 edits, and is more than 4 days old.

But User:Lumeigpo/sandbox/Ignacio Barsottelli isn't ready for mainspace in any case. It still has significant amounts of promotional language such as "Yo Limpio a Puerto Rico programs achieve success in the island making YLPR the most call to the action and educational rganization in the Caribbean.", "capturing the attention of the whole island,", and "This organizations have the unwavering support of celebrities, including Oscar & Grammy winners, to serve as spokespeople for education campaigns, the support of several organizations, companies, leading scientific, and educational experts.". There are statements in need of citations. The draft needs copy-editing for spelling, grammar, and idiomatic English. Some of the citations need improved metadata, and duplicate citations need to be combined. See Referencing for Beginners. You shouldn't try to move this to mainspace until these issues are fixed, in my view. DES ^(talk) 20:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC) @Lumeigpo: DES ^(talk) 20:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Lumeigpo: Welcome and thanks for stopping by. The "move" function is part of a suite of tools which are throttled to prevent abuse, users need to achieve "autoconfirmed" status in order to move a page. Autoconfirmed status happens once your account is over 4 days old and you have at least 10 actions. If you'd like to help out some other Wikipedia articles for a few days until you reach that threshold, the move button will automatically appear for you once you get there. Or, if you just want someone who is autoconfirmed to move the page for you, let us know and someone can do that post haste. --Jayron32 20:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Lumeigpo and Jayron32:, what Jayron32 said above is correct as far as it goes. But in this particular case, i strongly advise against moving or asking anyone to move the page into mainspace until more of the issues above are fixed. It could be moved into draftspace, say at Draft:Ignacio Barsottelli. As it stands, if moved into mainspace it might be speedy deleted as promotional. DES ^(talk) 21:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

How to protect against libel-slander attacks from competitor?

Take it somewhere else please

Help is needed I do not understand the Wikipedia maze, but I was advised to submit this question/situation to this discussion page. How do you protect against a competitor that commits libel-slander against you and then builds another page for self-advertisement for the purpose of promoting their page on Wikipedia as well as advertise for search engines? I put a picture summary report together with a small amount of historical background – please click to view summary report: http://modelmugging.org/history/impact-self-defense-wikipedia-attack.pdf I have identified tag teaming efforts of editor Nefariousski in latest Impact Self-Defense attack against Model Mugging. In her edit comments she is loaded with hypocritical contradictions such as COI, biographies of living persons (BLP), lack of editing balance, failure of editing in a NPOV, disregard to consensus for disputes, using an unreliable source to make libel-slanderous statements. And she is involved in a campaign to promote a competitor, Impact Self-Defense. Nefariousski-Impact tag team planned to link the Wikipedia ESD page to a derogatory Model Mugging Wikipedia page highlighting a tabloid source written with accusation heading, “controversy”. Impact also wrote a promotional page and pasted it into Nefariousski’s Sandbox where it has remained. They are also getting around Wikipedia rules against self-promotion and using Wikipedia for increasing search engine ranking by keeping their page in the sandbox status - FIRST PAGE on search results for "Empowerment Self-Defense". PLEASE CLICK the pdf link as evidence to view images in summary report of her COI campaign promoting Impact Self-Defense - again: http://modelmugging.org/history/impact-self-defense-wikipedia-attack.pdf Is this "nefarious" behavior? Should she be blocked and all her edits scrutinized? Does Wikipedia see a problem with hypocritical editor(s) attacking others for self-promotion of themselves or associates? Thank you for your assistance: (Wikiipedia-posting (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC) @Wikiipedia-posting: Hello there and welcome to the teahouse! One of the first things you do is stop tossing around claims of slander. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC) I think, instead of bringing these accusations to this forum, which is the wrong forum, you might be better advised to ask us here what the appropriate forum is. Please be aware of WP:BOOMERANG when raising matters of this nature. Fiddle Faddle 20:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Yikes. Sorry you're so upset, hopefully this will clear things up. 1. I'm not a "her". 2. I'm not affiliated with nor do I work for any self defense group. I'm just a regular ol Wikipedian who works in the Tech sector that has an interest in various topics. 3. I've been editing in good faith as the talk page will show, nothing I've added or changed on the page is unsourced, hyperbolic, or in violation of anything. If you or anyone else disagrees I'd be more than happy to discuss that on the talk page. 4. You not agreeing with something that is properly sourced doesn't make it NPOV. Your personal opinion of the events or the subject of the interview doesn't counter published and generally accepted sources, I'm sorry but that's just now how an encyclopedia operates. You can't just arbitrarily delete things you don't like because you don't agree with them. 5. My sandbox is exactly that. It's a place I go to put together potential articles that may or may not ever go anywhere. I think you give me way too much credit if you think a draft of something in my sandbox is actually somehow manipulating SEO against your company. 6. Although It's certainly challenging to have NPOV discussions with someone who's admittedly working for the company/group the page is about I've always been open and frequently used the talk page to detail / explain any editing and I'm more than happy to take the discussion to your talk page since this not the right venue Nefariousski (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe that I did not receive a fair and evenhanded appraisal from some of the editors involved on Wikipedia.

I have been referred here by other editors on Wikipedia.

A page about me has twice been opposed and defeated. I believe that I did not receive a fair and evenhanded appraisal from some of the editors involved on Wikipedia because of religious bias. Where can I appeal? Here or elsewhere?

Here's the Wikipedia back files or pages. I have continued to publish and receive an extensive worldwide recognition of my writing but am still not in Wikipedia perhaps because of this opposition:

At the time the “Frederick Glaysher” article on Wikipedia was under debate in 2008, Wjhonson observed,

"Their only purpose is to attack Glaysher. This del entry should be voided on that basis solely...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_4#Frederick_Glaysher

"The attacks imho are religion-based as this person is a vocal critic of certain Baha'i institutions. There is no evidence that his works are vanity-press publications. The article is fairly new and deserves new eyes to expand it, instead of this pressure by a vested group or a few individuals to suppress it. Wjhonson 4 April 2008" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frederick_Glaysher

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please advise.

My newly created account is fglaysher

Fglaysher (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have advised Fglaysher to come here to ask this question. I have looked at Frederick Glaysher and seen such of the history as I am able as a non admin and can see a deletion review. It seems to me that it is possible for this editor to use the WP:AFC process in order to create a neutral article, even as an autobiography. He needs to be aware of the process, and that reviewers will give him reviews based upon what they see in the draft article as both text and referencing. If the gentleman passes WP:BIO, despite the WP:COI of being the gentleman he may write about, he will eventually have an article here. It must however, be 100% WP:NPOV and must be very well referenced indeed.

I invite further opinions on the matter, please. Fiddle Faddle 17:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fglaysher: As a frame of reference, Fglaysher, you were never appraised on Wikipedia- the article about you and the potential for creating a suitable article about you were appraised. And they were appraised in a fair manner: the process by which all articles are assessed, the AfD process. And the results of the process, as determined by a number of well established editors who are still all in good standing as far as I can see, was that there was not evidence that an article about you could be created that meets the standards for a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that the appraisal was 7 years ago, the status of coverage about Glaysher may certainly have changed, but a quick google books search finds him listed as editor a lot, but nothing in the first three pages of results about him. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

One of the challenges is that subjects of biographies often stand too close to the subject matter to be able to make an unbiased judgement on their notability in a Wikipedia sense. Such notability is determined by references. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL may bear some fruit here. Time has moved on since the prior deletions and notability may have been achieved. I have not followed up the searches to check.

I should declare that I have no knowledge of the faith Mr Glaysher writes about, nor any interest in it. I care solely about article quality. Fiddle Faddle 17:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fglaysher: Welcome and thank you for bringing your concerns here. A few general statements on the issue, before getting into the details. 1) The discussion above was from 2008. That's quite a long time ago, and things change a lot in those years. I would pay a seven-year-old discussion very little mind except where it makes cogent points regarding Wikipedia policy (more on this later), and anywhere that statements it makes have changed in seven years, by logic, do not apply. 2) If, perchance, Wikipedia does need an article about you, neither you, nor anyone you know, work for, employ, hire, or pay should ever create or edit it. This is because Wikipedia has fairly stringent conflict-of-interest policies (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more information). Now that doesn't mean that an article about you cannot be created (pending other conditions, see below), nor does it mean you cannot help people at Wikipedia in certain ways, but we do ask people who are under a conflict of interest to refrain from directly writing about themselves or those they are paid to work for, but instead act as a resource by providing reliable sources of information (again, see below).

Now, some of the more details. Wikipedia does not publish information on everything which has ever existed. Wikipedia articles must only be about subjects for which there is ample 1) reliable 2) independent and 3) thorough source material in existence. That is, before a Wikipedia article can exist, there must have first been other writing about a topic. That writing must meet three basic criteria 1) it must be written in reliable sources. Reliable sources are ones with a reputation for fact checking, and solid editorial control, things like respected magazines and newspapers, books published by respected academic presses, peer-reviewed scholarly journals, etc. 2) It must be based on independent sources, that is the writing must be written by and published by people who themselves have no connection to the subject. For a person, such as yourself, this would mean interviews in a newspaper, in-depth biographies in book form, magazine articles about you and your work or personal life, etc, where the publisher was not hired by you or your employers to do that writing. Sources such as CVs, resumes, press releases, company bios published on employer websites, self-created or self-published works, etc. are generally unacceptable for this purpose. 3) It must be in depth enough to be able to write a reasonable-length encyclopedia article. For example, a magazine article which mentions a person's name in passing, but does not directly write about that person's life or work in detail is not considered an in-depth source. You can read Wikipedia:Notability for a lengthy, in-depth discussion of these policies or Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything for a more pithy overview.

Why does Wikipedia have all of these standards and requirements? That's because of Wikipedia's core mission: Wikipedia is built upon the reliability of the information that is published in it. So our articles are only as good as the source material used to research and write those articles. If we don't have good, in-depth, reliable, and independent source material as our research base to back up what is written in our articles, Wikipedia loses it's standing as a trustworthy source. So, if a subject does NOT have, already in existence, right now, solid, reliable source material (good writing our there in the world outside of Wikipedia), then Wikipedia should not have an article about that subject, whatever it is, be it a concept, place, person, thing, product, historical event, etc. Good raw material in the form of good, reliable writing is what is needed before we create a Wikipedia article.

Here's where you can come in to help. If Wikipedia is going to have an article about you, and if someone who ISN'T you, your employees, your employer, or someone you hire to do so, then that person, who doesn't really know you, is going to need that source material to work from. You can help that writer by gathering as many reliable, independent, and in-depth sources as you can find, and go to Wikipedia:Requested articles and file a request that the article be made about you, where you lay out all of the good, quality writing about you that the person who is eventually going to create your article is going to use to write about you and your life. Now, with all this being said, there exists the possibility that the source material doesn't exist. That is, there is not enough reliable, independent biographical information written about you. THAT was the reason why the article was deleted 7 years ago; as I stated things can change a lot in 7 years. If things HAVE changed, then you can provide links to those biographical writings to Wikipedia:Requested articles as I noted above. If the situation has not changed, and there is still not enough source material about your life, then I'm sorry, but Wikipedia still will not have an article about you. I hope this lengthy explanation helped explain the situation in some detail, and if there is anything else we can clarify for you, please feel free to ask. --Jayron32 17:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure whether I'm supposed to post here or not, but here are some sources that might be independently verified. There are others but computer is running out of time. Admittedly, I'm biased:

Frederick Glaysher | W. W. Norton & Company W. W. Norton & Company Frederick Glaysher studied writing under a private tutorial with Robert Hayden at the University of Michigan, http://books.wwnorton.com/books/Author.aspx?id=4294967812

“My Odyssey as an Epic Poet: Interview with Frederick Glaysher.” Poets’ Quarterly / Spring 2015 (April 6, 2015), http://www.poetsquarterly.com/2015/04/my-odyssey-as-epic-poet-interview-with.html

Book review by Umme Salma in Transnational Literature, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia http://dspace.flinders.edu.au/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2328/35084/Salma_Parliament.pdf

Frederick Glaysher’s “The Parliament of Poets” http://www.albanypoets.com/2013/02/frederick-glayshers-the-parliament-of-poets/

The Parliament of Poets by Frederick Glaysher (I believe it's in the UK) http://spirituality.today/categories/myth-story-telling/the-parliament-of-poets-by-frederick-glaysher

The Myth of the Enlightenment by Frederick Glaysher (UK) http://spirituality.today/categories/faith-belief/the-myth-of-the-enlightenment-by-frederick-glaysher

Modern epic poem reaches for the moon (Canada) http://landmarkreport.com/dgordon/2014/12/modern-epic-poem-reaches-for-the-moon

The Parliament of Poets by Frederick Glaysher (Africa) http://freduagyeman.blogspot.com/2013/10/41-parliament-of-poets-by-frederick.html

Perseus (Sweden) http://www.odyssey.pm/?p=1771

Fglaysher (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a very good start. I do not have the time to review all of these myself right now, and assess each one, but this sort of thing, where you help by pointing writers in the correct direction by providing sources, is excellent. If you have any more time in the future to provide more, please do so! --Jayron32 17:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed a couple. One thing to be sure about is that writings by Glaysher are unlikely to be appropriate as references, but writings about him are much more promising. Let me try to explain. If he manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be his work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for him, simply because it is the product he makes. So it is with writings, poetry etc. However, a review of his work by others tends to be a review of him and his methods, so is a reference.

Regrettably at least one or two seem to be by him, but it's a great start. Fiddle Faddle 17:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Fglaysher, and welcome to the Teahouse (and to Wikipedia). As explained above, our notability standard means that multiple in-depth treatments of your life and accomplishments must have been published by third parties; while I believe enough of the review of you at www.examiner.com/article/frederick-glaysher-s-the-parliament-of-poets-a-modern-day-epic-poem seems to be about you, the author, to count toward establishing your notability, I did not find any other biographical articles written about you by reliable, third-party sources in an initial Google search. I will review the sources you linked to above for suitability. It is possible that other eligible sources exist offline, for example in books published by authors not affiliated with you. Please keep in mind that while interviews with you can be used to establish facts cited in the potential Frederick Glayser Wikipedia article, interviews do not count toward establishing notability. Material about you put out by a publisher of your work is considered promotional, and also does not count toward notability.

As the subject of the proposed article, you would be discouraged but not forbidden from contributing to the article about you. It so happens that I make it one of my hobbies at Wikipedia to help people in situations like yours, by involving myself, an editor without a conflict of interest, in the creation of the article in question. If sufficient sources do exist (and enough of them are accessible to me online or via my library), then I would be happy to work with you on this at Draft:Frederick Glaysher, and the draft article could then be submitted to another uninvolved editor for review and promotion to article status.

Please keep in mind, however, that at Wikipedia one of our principles is to assume good faith about other editors, and not for example accuse them of being part of a vast conspiracy. Meaning no offense to your beliefs, most Wikipedia editors have never even heard of the Baha'i faith, much less taken sides in its internal disagreements. I will disclose that I have one friend who is a Baha'i, though we lost touch after she moved out of state some years ago. It appears that the decisions to delete former versions of the Frederick Glaysher Wikipedia article were based on the same standards every other Wikipedia article is held to, not bias. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I like the fix it direction the discussion is taking. I went ahead and started the the draft. You're welcome over there, Frederick, as well as any and all other editors willing and able to work on the draft. It may grow to an acceptable article or fail but deserves a go. See you over in the draft's talk page. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 18:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Doctree, for creating a draft, and others. I've posted to it, hoping appropriately. Since I updated the sources above, should I copy them there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fglaysher (talk • contribs) 19:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have added several sources, along with some content based on them. Note that only one or possibly two of the sources I added would count toward establishing the notability of Frederick Glayser; one of those sources was published by Examiner.com, which domain is currently blacklisted on Wikipedia. I have not yet researched the reason for the blacklisting; it is possible that the exact page on which the in-depth article appears could be whitelisted, but I have not yet made a whitelist request for it. The other source I found that might go towards notability focuses entirely on one of Glayser's works rather than the author himself, which some editors may consider to contribute insufficiently to notability. All the other sources I added are brief mentions, which are useful for establishing facts, but cannot prove notability. Hopefully this will give you something to go on, Fglaysher. I also recommend looking at other authors' articles for ideas about what kind of information should be included, how it should be presented, and where it should be referenced with citations. Good luck, and don't hesitate to ask if you need more help. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

GrammarFascist, Examiner.com is noted for not excersizing any meaningful editorial control over the various publications that it hosts, for doing no fact checking, and for paying contributors on a formula which encourages them to write many posts/articles, while spending little time or effort on checking them. Also, it frequently includes slightly modified versions of stories from elsewhere, which has been considered plagiarism in the past. Requests to white-list particular articles from that site are most often declined, unless it can be shown that the author of the particular story is a noted expert on the topic, such that a personal blog post by that person would be considered reliable. Mostly it isn't worth bothering with as a source for articles here. DES ^(talk) 22:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Can I cut and paste from a sandbox to an existing article?

Hi! I've rewritten an article that is under discussion for deletion that I believe addresses the issues cited. What I'd like to do is add to or replace the existing stub that doesn't have much content without rewriting everything and the citations. It doesn't appear appropriate to "move" my rewrite since the page already exists. It seems the best way is to copy the article then paste it into the one that needs help. What is the best way to do this? Thanks!PH Solution (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, PH Solution and welcome to the Teahouse. If you really want to do a total replacement, and no one but you has edited the sandbox you have been using, you may copy the wiki-text of the sandbox and paste it over the wiki-text of the article, or the relevant part of that text. Since the article is under deletion discussion, you should post to that discussion explaining what you did and why. DES ^(talk) 01:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I'm the only one who edited and I already put a message a week ago on the deletion discussion that I wanted to take a crack at a rewrite. I guess my original question is a bit more simplistic- do i just open the wiki-text on both pages and do a "right-click" cut, then paste? Or is there some more formal method?PH Solution (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, PH Solution, that will be fine. If any contributions by other editors were included, more formalites would be needed, and a WP:MOVE might well be better. But in this specific case, simple cut and paste is ok.

By the way, you have twice now blanked your own comment (and the second time the entire thread) here. Did you intend to do that? It is not usually a good idea. DES ^(talk) 01:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! Something weird is going on with my computer. I've twice had my response not show up and other times the whole text blanks. Must be poldergeists. But I appreciate your help and now know what to do.PH Solution (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Hi, so I just joined Wikipedia yesterday, and I tried to add a few things to some pages with sources, but people kept deleting them saying they were't "reliable sources." What exactly is a reliable source? Smoore95GAGA (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Smoore95GAGA and welcome to The Teahouse. A reliable source is a respected journal or newspaper or a book by a respected publisher. It has a reputation for editorial oversight, accuracy and fact-checking its information. You would not want to use The National Enquirer. A blog, in general, is not considered reliable. Many web sites would not be considered reliable. This incldes Wikipedia. And you would want the source to be independent of its subject. No press releases, no interviews, no company web sites for anything but non-controversial information. And at this stage you want extensive coverage of the article subject, not trivial mentions. See more at WP:RS.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Smoore95GAGA: if you use the more selective books.google.com or news.google.com that tends to bring a pretty high ratio of usable sources to non usable sources. There will still be non acceptable sources from both (blogs, and Wikipedia scrapings passed off as "books" for example) and you will miss a bunch of potentially reliable source coverage (such as major magazines) but they are good places to start than just a plain google search. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Need more links template

Hello. My question is for pages that have the 'more links' template, how many links does an article need to have that template removed? Thanks. New User Person (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, New User Person, and welcome to the Teahouse. That is a judgement call. Terms which might help or inform the reader should be linked. Any editor can remove such a tag if s/he thinks in good faith that additional links would not be helpful. I have added some links and removed that tag, but added some other maintenance tags which seem appropriate in my view. DES ^(talk) 21:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

However, don't go overboard! Link things that would help the average reader, but not those that every reader should know. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the helpful responses. New User Person (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy and lists of words

Hello,

I am considering creating an article similar to List of American words not widely used in the United_Kingdom, except that it would have to do with French words used in France but uncommon in Quebec. I would like to have help understanding how the policies Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_words would apply to such an article.

I would much prefer to have the list on Wikipedia than on Wiktionary, because my intention is for every single entry to be reliably sourced (as not being common in Quebec), and I understand Wiktionary doesn't insist on sourcing its information that way. So there would be the risk of a reliable list eventually becoming unreliable.

I am confused as to why List of American words not widely used in the United_Kingdom is not much longer than it is. I am certain that such a list could be extended to many thousands of words, all reliably sourced to dictionaries. Is this because nobody has bothered to do it, or is it because making such a long list would possibly contravene Wikipedia policies or guidelines? I would like to know this before embarking on a major project.

Thanks. Ivujivik (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ivujivik. When I look at List of American words not widely used in the United_Kingdom, I see it as a pretty long article while you see it as a fairly short article. Perceptions can vary. If you want to expand it, please feel free to do so. But if it had thousands of entries, it would be unwieldy and overly long. If expanded that much, it should be broken into sub articles.

As for your idea for an article about words common in France but not in Quebec, it seems to me that such an article would be appropriate for the French Wikipedia. Articles here on the English Wikipedia should be written in English, not French. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with this line of reasoning. IF it is established that the comparison of vocabulary lists of one dialect to another dialect is encyclopedic and notable (big if), then it wouldn't matter if the dialects are English or French or Swahili, as long as the third parties are making the comparisons. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that you can only add what you can source. If there are no reliable sources that discuss a particular word difference it cannot be included in the article, doing so would be original research. While we do have articles about various languages here I agree with User:Cullen328 that a French word list as such would not be appropriate here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The example article is not even supposed to be here as an attractive nuisance , guiding people in the wrong direction: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom. No one ever got around to transwiki it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328 and Dodger67, Thanks for your replies. The list could always be broken into sub-articles by alphabetical order. The individual entries would mostly be sourced to dictionaries, so I really think original research would not be a consideration. The article would be written in English, but the topic would be the French language. The only mention of language in Wikipedia:Notability is that to establish the notability of a subject, the language of the sources is immaterial.

In these circumstances, do you still feel that such a list would not be appropriate on the English Wikipedia? What I would like is to understand in a detailed way how Wikipedia policies and guidelines might apply to the article.

TheRedPenOfDoom mentions that the article I mentioned was supposed to be transwikied. It seems that that decision in 2009 came after a string of Keep decisions on a family of related articles here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of American and British words What is the status of the other articles in the group? Ivujivik (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

There are (almost) four such articles, three of which have multiple issues and the fourth one is a section of another one.Xx236 (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Xx236 I meant status with respect to deletion. In principle, it should be possible to verify entries in the lists using dictionaries. Ivujivik (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

mere existence is not sufficient rationale for an article, the topic must have been covered by reliable sources and not merely be generated by Wikipedians cross referencing dictionaries. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenofDoom The topic of lexical differences between French French and Quebec French is obviously of interest to scholars and has been written about extensively. The question is how this requirement applies to lists specifically. For example, the list of all episodes of some TV show is not a normal "topic" that must have been written about - it is the TV show itself that must be notable.

The policy on original research doesn't say anything about "cross-referencing dictionaries", however I saw that in an edit summary you mentioned this might be "Synthesis". But please have a look at Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition. No new thesis would emerge from gathering the information together. Ivujivik (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think that a list is the most appropriate presentation rather than prose? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I think on the one hand for readers' ease of reference, and on the other because it would be an almost impossibly difficult task to work a comprehensive list of words into well-sourced prose. Imagine if you asked that question about, say, List of municipalities in Ontario.Ivujivik (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Bio on existing article of person

The article, "Ohl" with the complete name of: Russell Ohl is about an American engineer. I'm happy someone (unknown to me) created the article. It has special meaning to me because he is my grandfather and I would like to add some “Bio” to the article if this is appropriate. I've been a member for a few years however, have not taken my (valuable) time to learn all the ins and outs of Wiki editing. I read some of the rules saying you should not post about yourself so thought to ask here.Karl in Spokane (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Karl Shoemaker. Your grandfather Russell Ohl, the inventor of the silicon photovoltaic cell 75 years ago, is definitely a notable person and it would be wonderful to have a greatly expanded article about him. However, you cannot expand the article based on your unpublished personal family memories. We call that original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You must rely on summarizing what published reliable sources have written about him. Detailed newspaper obituaries may provide a good overview of his life, for example. Please read Your first article. Even though you will be expanding an existing article instead of beginning a new one, I think you will find a lot of useful advice there. And please free to return to the Teahouse at any time with more specific questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

How do I start a discussion about functional changes that might be made to wikipedia

I am an extremely frequent user of wikipedia and over the years I have learned to keep track of citations in order to determine which information I can trust as fact.

I believe that there is a major problem with the overuse of [citation needed]. While I have learned to notice this overtime I believe that a majority of casual users do not. I saw a discussion on this topic on the citation needed page however it was all about controlling its abuse, which is in itself a daunting task if the feature is not outright removed.

I want to suggest and discuss a format change for any information still requiring a citation. At the very least [citation needed] should be in red like with missing citations, however I believe that something more noticeable like having all un cited text in red would do a much better job at solving the problem. Thesowismine (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Thesowismine. This is something that would need to be discussed at the Village Pump Proposals board - the Village Pump is Wikipedia's general discussion area for project-related topics. Major changes to functionality are generally put forward there for consideration by the editing community before being implemented. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Lost my User page

I started a new article and cannot retrieve it. How do I get it back on the screen. It was created from within my account

Guy Duczynski (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hullo, is anyone there??? Guy Duczynski (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy Duczynski - It helps if you tell us what the article was - if it was User:Guy Duczynski/Systemic operational design - that is still there - if not, what was it? - Arjayay (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Guy Duczynski, welcome to the Teahouse. Click "Contributions" at the top right to see your saved edits. Special:Contributions/Guy Duczynski shows User:Guy Duczynski/Systemic operational design. Is that it? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Found it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Duczynski (talk • contribs) 11:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have a plain language version of 'what you type' alongside 'what you get'. Learning the language is torture and I find myself creating all sorts of bizarre text with probably inappropriate results - links and so forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Duczynski (talk • contribs) 11:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy Duczynski - I'd start with Help:Cheatsheet - there are links to explanations of more complicated formatting at the bottom of that page. Arjayay (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy Duczynski I am not a Teahouse host, but I did notice that in the External Links section of the article there is mention of a Duczynski, G. If that is you, it might be worth your while reading WP:COI to prevent wasted effort. A Teahouse host could explain better why. SovalValtos (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

THANK YOU!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Duczynski (talk • contribs) 11:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Lost my Account

i wrote an article on an Account.... username of that account was " tariqqureshi " , when i created that account i didnt give any email address because it was written optional on it. now i forgot the password... what can i do please help me!! Ahmadabdullahmustafai (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ahmadabdullahmustafai, welcome to the Teahouse. The account User:Tariqqureshi was created in 2006 but Special:Contributions/Tariqqureshi shows it has never edited. Do you mean User:Tariqqureshiadv? That account was created today and has the edits at Special:Contributions/Tariqqureshiadv. If you don't know the password then you cannot retrieve any of the accounts. You could write on the user pages that both accounts were made by you. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

how do I add vision / mission statement to a page?

Please guide me how I can add vision or mission statement on a wiki page. ThanksWillsparkles (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't. Corporate mission statements do not belong in Wikipedia articles. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Willsparkles, In some cases, they are included in a form such as "XYZ company states that its mission is ..." with a citation to some company publication. However this should only be done if such a statement is relativly brief and the statement is not overly promotional, and if the article is substantial enough that the mission statement will not get undue weight by its very presence. If in doubt, leave it out. DES ^(talk) 12:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor edits template?

If I have come accross an editor that has been making a LOT of non-minor edits and marking them all as minor, is there like a bracketed template I can place on their user:talk to warn them against doing so in an elegant way? I don't know where I'd find something like that... Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 13:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors, and welcome to the Teahouse. You could use {{subst:uw-minor}}. This and many other warning and notification templates are listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Do be careful that when you use a template, it actually says what you mean to say -- you are as responsible for the message as if you had typed it manually. But in this case I suspect that {{Uw-minor}} will do the job. Please remember to subst it, as shown above. DES ^(talk) 13:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Misspent Youth UK Punk Band Article rejected

Hi I am completely new to writing for wikipedia and was redirected to you here. As a collector of music for many years and somebody who often uses Wikipedia to look up information on many musicians/bands etc I noticed there are some omissions so felt that with my own personal knowledge I might be able to clear up a few holes. However on writing my first article on 1976 UK Punk Band Misspent Youth I seem to be coming up against problems regarding acceptance of cited support? I have used quotes from a well recognised published book by Borderline Books, also referenced 2 major websites plus other references but not sure really what else I can use, I felt I had covered points section 1 point 7 and recordings section point 5 on artist notability and relevance fairly well. I would appreciate any help you might give me as I would like to carry on writing such articles Kind Regards Geoff Bubbles (Geoff Bubbles (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Geoff Bubbles, and welcome to the Teahouse. The primary issue here is notability. (see also WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.) This normally requires "significant coverage" in multiple independent reliable sources. So let's look at the sources currently in Draft:Misspent Youth (Band). www.punk77.co.uk seems to be a one-person hobby/fan site, and as such would not be considered a Reliable source unless the author is a known expert with a reputation for reliability on the subject. Can you indicate anything about this site's reputation or that of its author? popsike.com seems to be a search engine leading to auction results. As such I would think it constitutes "user-generated content" with no editorial control, and so again would not count as a reliable source. (Note that even if he site were considered reliable, a Wikipedia citation should never be to a search query, because the result of that can change without notice. It should always be to a specific publication or a reasonably stable web site that could be archived.) boredteenagers.co.uk. appears to be a series of album/track listings, with no commentary or analysis of any sort. It therefore does not provide "significant coverage" even if it is considered reliable for the facts it does state. That leaves only the Alex Ogg book. This looks as if it might be a reliable source. It is held by major libraries, although I know nothing about the reputation of the publisher: "Cherry Red Books". Indeed I see it is held by a library near me, and so i could in theory obtain and verify the content. However, it is at best a single source. Multiple reliable sources really are needed here, and none of the other sources cited so far qualifies. Finding and adding additional reliable sources should address this issue. DES ^(talk) 14:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

My article was deleted immediately!

Hello, I am Ahmad Abdullah's secretary, He is a Well known Karachi business man. I created new account on wikipedia today, I was writing the article mean while i saw the save button, so the article was saved... soon after a minute or less..the article was canceled due to some violation. please guide me about this. Thanks Ahmadabdullahmustafai (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ahmadabdullahmustafai. Do you know what the title of the article was? Knowing that would help us understand why it was deleted. There is an existing article called Ahmad Abdullah, but that appears to be about someone else. What I can say, though, is that you appear to have a clear conflict of interest here, as Ahmad Abdullah is your boss. The relevant guidelines here are set out at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Note that the page states, "If you have a close financial relationship with a topic you wish to write about – including as an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ahmadabdullahmustafai, and welcome to the Teahouse. Ahmad Abdullah Qureshi was deleted by RHaworth, a very experienced admin, with the logged reason "A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". The total content was: "Ahmad Abdullah Qureshi (Urdu: احمد عبداللہ قریشی) is presently student of class 8.He was born in 2001 in the city Gujranwala, Punjab, Pakistan.". That text does not in any way indicate why this person is significant, much less notable. Are you really the secretary of a 15-year-old? Or is this perhaps your boss's son or other relation? (This is the only article that your account has saved that has been deleted.) In any case, please read our Golden Rule and Your First Article before trying to create an article in future. I advise that you use the Articel Wizard and the Articles for creation process for your first few articles at least. Also, I endorse what Cordless Larry said above, and I also ask you to note that https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use requires that anyone editing with a financial conflict of interest disclose this. {{paid}} may be used for such disclosures. DES ^(talk) 12:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(fixed link to WP:42) —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Body of Knowledge and Certification

I love the Wiki idea and community. Is there some body of knowledge or certification around this? Really engaging stuff! Well done!!Olufemi Ariyo (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Olufemi Ariyo, and welcome to the Teahouse (and Wikipedia). I dream of horses has left a bunch of links on your user page that should be of use to you in learning your way around the Wikipedia community and our policies and guidelines. Happy editing, and feel free to ask any more specific questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

CSD and PROD logs

How does one go about creating their own CSD and PROD logs? Thanks, Rubbish computer 17:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Hey Rubbish-- these CSD and PROD logs are generated by Twinkle. First, Twinkle needs to be enabled under the gadgets tab under your preference. Then, under your preferences with Twinkle, check the boxes for the CSD and PROD logs under this CSD section and this PROD section. Getting past nominations in there is possible, but takes a bit of manual work. Let me know if you're interested and I can show you how I did it. Take care, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@JethroBT: Thanks, could you show me please? Cheers, --Rubbish computer 17:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Well, it's not working for me at the moment, but I used Snotty Wong's edit summary tool several years back to find instances where I used CSD / PROD using Twinkle, which produced standard edit summaries (e.g. Proposing article for deletion or Requesting speedy deletion). So you'd want to use this tool search through your contribution history for those instances. Try it out and see if it works. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: Thanks, but can you get logs that are filled in automatically when you CSD or PROD a page? --Rubbish computer 19:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Yes, the logs will start to populate with subsequent CSD / PRODs you make, but past ones you've done have to be filled in manually. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Is the person in my article notable and should I add more details?

I recently submitted an article on Domenico Tranaso, a notary from Altamura, Italy who led a riot to take over the city in 1848. Altamura was under the control of the rioters (and, presumably, their leader, Tranaso) for a span of roughly two weeks. It was an experience that foreshadowed the future unification of Italy 12 years later, and Altamura is a rather large city. Would this person be considered notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry?

Additionally, does my draft contain a sufficient amount of detail about him? What changes, in general, could be made to ensure the acceptance of this article?

Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Domenico_Tranaso

Hlt443 (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Hlt443: ,

At Wikipedia "notability" is shorthand for a particular set of criteria and not the dictionary or popular usage of the term. Here it is whether or not other people have considered the subject worthy of writing about in some depth. I dont read Italian, but from a first glance from your draft and google books it seems quite possible. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hlt443. I encourage you to continue improving your draft article. You may find Your first article to be useful. Remarkable things happened across Europe in 1848, and though the revolutionary movements were defeated, their after-effects spread throughout the world and are felt to the present day. You may find Revolutions in 1848 and Revolutions of 1848 in the Italian states useful for placing the events in Altamura into a broader context.

I happen to live in the Napa Valley, near San Francisco. Many refugees from the 1848 uprisings contributed to our explosive 1849 Gold Rush boom. And in Napa, an Italian-American family named "Altamura" has been involved in local real estate development for many years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Am I able to change my user name?

I don't like the Username I originally chose, is there a way to change it? or Do I have to delete the account and start a new one?

ThanksAdriana Correa 00:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Adriana Correa 00:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adcorreausa (talk • contribs)

Hello, Adcorreausa, and Welcome to the Teahouse. You can change your username without having to create a new account, see Wikipedia:Changing username and the Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple for the usual case. Note also that accounts cannot ever be deleted, but they can be renamed to a random name if you ever want to vanish. I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 00:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Adcorreausa. Another option is to abandon all use of your existing account, 100%. Then you can start a new account with a name more to your liking. Please see WP:CLEANSTART for the policy on this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Page Curation issue.

Hello, I have been using page curation for about 3 months, up until as soon as earlier today. I am trying to use page curation, but I can not get the panel to appear. Also, I can not use twinkle on certain pages either, mostly those on page curation. Please help me. ThisGuyIsGreat (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi ThisGuyIsGreat. If the curation issue is just that the curation tool bar has been turned off, while on a page subject to curation, go to the Toolbox list of links on the left hand side of the page and click "Curate this article". That will reanimate it. I don't know about the Twinkle issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I cant find the curate this article part. ThisGuyIsGreat (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't able to help ThisGuyIsGreat. Let's just make sure we're on the same page. Not all articles are subject to curation and, as far as I know, only those listed at Special:NewPagesFeed. You will only see the toolbar if it's on, or the link to turn it back on, if you're at an article listed there. So, once there, click on an article. Now look to the far left of the page. Underneath the Wikipedia globe, you'll see a series of links, sorted under "interaction", "Tools", "Print/Export", "Languages". Under the Tools menu, if the curation tool bar is off, the last entry there should say "Curate this Article". If that's not there then I don't know what it might be. Have you changed any setting recently? Your skin? Added any scripts or tools to your interface? Have you tried a different browser to see if it works in one but not another? You might post to Wikipedia talk:Page Curation to seek more specific help. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a whole thread about this issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Twinkle and Page Curation failing to load on certain pages. Nthep (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Update of Wikipedia articles on Roland Berger

Dear Wikipedia-Team,

Roland Berger has recenetly rebranded its business. Therefore, there are many deviations in the Wikipedia articles as they still contain the old firm name/ logo etc. I already proposed changes on the relevant Wikipedia pages (Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, Roland Berger and Burkhard Schwenker). I could also provide you with new sources as some of the existing ones are dead links. Could you be so kind and assist me with the implementations of the changes?

Thank you very much in advance.

Kind regards,

--Franziska Poszler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franziska Poszler (talk • contribs) 12:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Franziska Poszler, and welcome to the Teahouse. (Please always "sign" your comments here with four ~~~~ tildes.) I will review the requested edits to see whether they can be sourced and are thus appropriate for Wikipedia. If so, I will make the edits. I will probably check myself for updated URLs for links that have gone dead, but yes, if you already know working URLs to replace dead links, please list them, either here or on the appropriate article talk pages. Thank you for respecting Wikipedia's policy discouraging users with a conflict of interest from editing pages about them or their organizations directly. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello GrammarFascist, thank you very much for your assistance. I have left the updated information and links on the talk page of each side (Roland Berger Strategy Consultants (German and English), Roland Berger (German and English) and Burkhard Schwenker (German and English)). Here is the press release to Roland Berger's rebranding: http://www.rolandberger.com/press_releases/Roland_Berger_rebranded.html. On the webpage you can also find the new logo. Thank you in advance.

Kind regards, Franziska Poszler --Franziska Poszler (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Franziska Poszler. The press release you linked to about the rebranding does not mention the firm's previous name (surely an oversight, but nevertheless we cannot assume here) and so the "rebranding" is easily mistaken as referring solely to the new logo. To make the change I would need to see a source that mentioned both the old name and the new one. I hope this is clearer. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 12:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)