Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 464

Archive 460

←

Archive 462

Archive 463

Archive 464

Archive 465

Archive 466

→

Archive 470

Why am I unable to make this edit on an article?

I've created a Wikipedia profile today for the sake of making an edit on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuckles_and_Mr._Squeezy

I found the "Response" section to be rather opinionated, and wanted to edit it to be more Wikipedia-friendly. My edit involved changing it to a general statement along with a quote from an interview with the lead singer. The section after the edit would be as follows:

---

Begin edit------------

The album generally received a negative response from fans, due to its departure from the sound of the band's previous releases. In an interview with Radio Metal, Gavin states:

I have had people write to me saying that they have always been a long time fan and now they don’t want to be one anymore. Other people will say that they didn’t like any of our old music but that they love this record. People have also written to say that they love the new album and that we are always evolving or changing and that they accept that which is cool. Or there are even people who wrote to me telling me it sucks and then they wrote back a month later to say that actually they like it now! I have heard anything that you can imagine about it. But in a way, our last record came out and then it left so i’m glad that there is some reaction whether we are making people happy or not. That is why we have been a band for so long. To us, this is a collaborative effort you know. It’s not just a Dredg record, it’s us with Dan The Automator, and to me that is what the record sounds like.[1]

---

End edit------------

However, upon trying to save the edit, I'm told that a filter has detected that my edit may not be constructive, and warns against vandalism. It then instructs me to hit "Save" again if I believe it is constructive, and to report the error. If I try to save again, the same message comes up. If I click on the "report this error" link, it simply brings me to a "false positives" page full of errors that other people have reported, and no way for me to report mine.

Is there any reason in particular this is happening? Is my edit really not constructive?

Thank you for your time! HoboFlo (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you try to report your false positive? If you were not able to report your false positive, then the only guess I have is that reporting of false positives may be semi-protected, which, in my opinion, it should not be. Does some privileged editor here have the ability to determine what edit filter is on the page and who the owner of the edit filter is, and to invite them here? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that your attempted edit may result in controversy, because it is mostly negative, but it appears to be a good-faith edit that should be allowed subject to be bold, revert, discuss. I would suggest that, in the absence of the ability to make your edit, you propose your edit on the article talk page. (Proposing non-minor edits on talk pages is a good idea anyway._ Even if it is controversial, it is clearly a good-faith effort and shouldn't be considered "non-constructive". In the case of questioned edits, what is non-constructive is edit-warring, which you were not doing. Your edit definitely was not vandalism, and the filter may be too expansive, in order to catch some specific previous type of vandalism. Discuss your edit on the talk page. Can someone tell who the owner of the edit filter is? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi HoboFlo
The reason the filter blocked you, is because of one of the phrases in your quotation, as can be seen from your abuse log here - you were clearly persistent, but you will not by-pass the filter that way. Unfortunately, many new accounts are just here to vandalize, so trying to add that with your first edit triggered the filter.
I appreciate it is a quotation, and I could add it, but given the length of the quotation, it would swamp the article - and, although I don't know how long the interview was, we have to be mindful of copyright on long quotations. Furthermore, we are more interested about what others say about the band and its records, than what the band themselves say. Arjayay (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses! I guess I assumed that words and phrases used in quotations wouldn't be considered in the filter, but it makes sense. I'll consider an alternative edit that doesn't use such a large portion of the interview, and also contains the perspectives of those outside of the band.

HoboFlo (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the filter has a way of knowing that the material you tried to add was a quote, HoboFlo. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Understanding when/where to create subpages

I've been chatting with some people on WT:MED#What's going on with SUDs? about cleaning up/reorganizing a lot of the pages on substance use disorders (SUD), because there's a lot of duplication of articles (not to mention a lot of poorly sourced content). To keep things organized for myself, I want to make a list of all of the articles that exist and where things redirect (e.g. cannabis use disorders redirects to cannabis instead of cannabis use disorder-- someone fixed it since yesterday, but I'm sure I'll come across similar examples later). It doesn't seem like the there's a single category that lists all of the SUD articles, so every time I think I know of all of them, I find more, which is why I want to make my own list. Is that the kind of thing I should make a subpage for on my own userspace or should I do that off of wikipedia completely? Thank you! PermStrump(talk) 14:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Permstrump. Either way is perfectly acceptable. if you user a userspace page, such as User:Permstrump/SUDlist, you can use wiki-links, and can point other people at your work on-wiki. if you work off-wiki, you can use whatever local tools you have and like. I think i would do such a task in a userspace page. DES ^(talk) 15:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

DES: Thanks for the response! I thought of another question... Are we supposed to delete userspace pages when we're done with them? If so, how? PermStrump(talk) 17:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Permstrump, there is no need to delete old user pages, and no particular benefit in doing so. It doesn't save any server space, as deleted revisions are all still stored. It does simplify the result of a search through your user subpages. (for example, a search through mine can be done via Special:PrefixIndex/User:DESiegel/). If you want such a page deleted, tag it with {{db-author}} or {{db-u1}} and an admin should delete it for you reasonably promptly. (Those tags place the page in a category routinely patrolled by many admins, and serve as a request to delete the page. The 2nd applies even if other editors have contributed to the page.) DES ^(talk) 19:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Userpage

hello!

i am BB10clock, and i want to create my own userpage. (it seems useful) what should i post in there, and what should NOT be posted in that page?

in general, i dont know what is allowed, and what is not allowed? please help me out, im new, and i dont know what i should and what i should not do.

BB10clock (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, BB10clock and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing that your user page is intended for: anything you like about you as a Wikipedia editor, such as your interests, what articles you have edited etc. You can share a little more general information about yourself if you wish - we are more relaxed about user pages than most other pages - but it should be mostly about what you do, or intend to do, here on Wikipedia. You can also add Userboxes if you like. See User pages for more ideas. --ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed your duplicated question, just above. --ColinFine (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

thank you sir colinfine!

BTW, if a page is not created yet, (its in red letters), can i suggest to someone to create it? and if yes, what is the proper way to do it? (i can even suggest such a thing to you, about 1 page that is not created yet)

BB10clock (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, BB10clock. It is easy to create your own user page and you do not need anyone else's help. When logged in, simply click on the red link that is your current signature right here in this discussion. That will bring up an edit window with a pink warning box saying that you are the only person who should create your own user page in most circumstances. Simply type something into that edit window about your goals as a Wikipedia editor, and save it. You can type six or seven words, or a thousand. Your choice. As long as it is about you as an editor and is not overtly disruptive, then it is fine. You can modify it at any time as you see fit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Whereas if you are referring to an article that does not yet exist, BB10clock, you can list it at Wikipedia:Requested articles (or start it yourself, of course). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @BB10clock: Thatnks for asking. Unless I am (not) seeing things, I haven't seen anyone recommended Wikipedia:User_pages which contains a list of things you should include and a list of things you should not.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I linked to it in my original reply --ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

new article questions

Hi,

I'd like some advice on whether a request to create a new article will have merit.

May (should?) I create or request pages for two albums belonging to the recording artist 'Ngaiire'? If so, how can I do this in a way that avoids some of the passion and hurt feelings that I've noticed from fans of other up-and-coming artists?

thanks Werafa (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Werafa, welcome to the Teahouse! I'm sure you will receive advice from other editors but I just want to recommend that you work on building articles in User:Werafa/sandbox which you have already set up. When you think your article is well-written and has adequate sourcing, I encourage you to submit it to Articles for Creation where it will receive a review by experienced editors. Articles that go through AFC are more likely to not get deleted than putting an article directly into Wikipedia main space. That would be my recommendation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Liz - I'll give it a go

Werafa (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Werafa. Before you spend time working on drafts of articles, be sure that you have sources to establish that the subjects are Notable. This means that there should be multiple published independent reliable sources. See Your First article and Wikipedia's golden rule. For an album, there should be several reviews or other discussions in reliable sources. This means not directory entries or just track lists or mentions, but something that devotes several paragraphs at least to the album. This means not blogs or fan sites or one-person web sites or self-published books. This also means nothing from the creator, or the publisher, or anyone affiliated or associated with either the creator or publisher. Newspaper or magazine articles can work, or reviews on significant music sites. If notability can't be established with this kind of sourcing, a draft will not be approved, no matter how well it is written or formatted. See our guideline for notability of music topics for more information. DES ^(talk) 23:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Very helpful, Fuhgettaboutit! Thank you very much. -Erin2602:306:3893:900:A814:9E0C:7350:4B40 (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Des,

there are multiple reviews from australian music industry websites - where journalists are employed, and the occasional regional newspaper that has reviewed her first album and who have begun to comment on the second album. It will all hinge on whether the review sites are considered by wiki regulars to be significant.

---

another question if I may, JJJ radio is a national Icon for Australian music. how does one (and may one) reference radio interviews as an information source?

thanks once again Werafa (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You can use {{Cite interview}} for that, Werafa. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this Cordless Larry - Shall Do

115.187.203.15 (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I want to add an article, but am wondering about importance.

I want to submit an article, because when I searched "Quarry Hill", I was redirected to a page where "Quarry Hill Nature Center" has not been created, but is still listed under what I assume is "notable examples of quarry hill". Should I create a page for the nature center, as it is a slightly local interest, it does have an extensive and interesting history that might be appreciated.

Theoryofnerd (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Theoryofnerd. That someone added it to the disambiguation page Quarry Hill doesn't mean that it is notable. See the advice in Wikipedia:Places of local interest. For an article you will need references that are independent of the center. To start, it would be best to add it to the Rochester, Minnesota article. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Theoryofnerd. Notability (as the term is used on Wikipedia) is not quite the same thing as "importance". Essentially, it refers to the need for a subject to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. If such coverage of the nature centre exists, then an article would be acceptable. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

hello people, i would like to create/request this specific page to be created in WP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_Crew if anyone wishes, i can provide links, internet news sites links, and various parts of evidence, proving the existence and the notability of this group/article.

please remain civil, and reasonable. i shall ask for someone neutral to create this article, and i can only provide the evidence of its notability/existence/noteworthy value.

BB10clock (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:J Luke Wood

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copy edit done on Infibeam

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

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

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

Deletion of my first article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who spends the money?

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

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

How do you manage your editing status?

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

Please respond.

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

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

I'm not sure what you mean by editing status or editing power. If you don't want your edits to be reverted then try to follow the policies and guidelines, and stop making vandalism like [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some edits

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

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

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

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

Having trouble--double set of references

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

Cannot Add Content to page

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

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

WWII

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

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

Cordless Larry I thought that too, but unless I´m getting it wrong, it´s not that easy. That info was in an infobox and that infobox was deleted..? [2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

AFD vote

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

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

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

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

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

Formatting query

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

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

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

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

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

importing from different wikis

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

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

Speedy Deletion of Himali English Boarding School

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maryn McKenna Article and Uploading Images From Other Websites

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

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

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

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

Lapring Language

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editorial Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

just wondering

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

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

Suppressing "|C|TB" after talk link

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

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

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

edit reverted, why ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to wikisource (DNB00)

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

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

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

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

---

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