Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 412

Archive 405

←

Archive 410

Archive 411

Archive 412

Archive 413

Archive 414

Archive 415

create a new page

Hi, I am totally inexperienced in Wikipedia and would like to create a page, based on the website (I am the administrator of)of my husband,the Belgian sculptor Philippe Desomberg: www.philippedesomberg.org/ what is the easiest way? thank you for your help Jutta Koch Desomberg Juttadesomberg (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jutta and welcome to the Teahouse. We don't recommend anyone that has close ties with someone create an article due to problems of conflict of interest However you may request an article to be created here. If you have any questions please come back to the teahouse or ask me on my talk page Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Juttadesomberg. The truth is, you probably can't write an article about a website you are administrator of, especially one about somebody close to you. It's called conflict of interest. We have lots of people who want to write articles about themselves or their companies, and in most cases the best thing you can do is go to WP:Articles for creation and request that another editor with no interest in your website write an article about it. Self-written articles tend to be too promotional in tone, which is a big no (see WP:PROMO). Also, your website may not meet notability guidelines either. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 14:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@White Arabian mare, AFC isn't where requests for an article to be created are posted, AFC is where newbies are helped to create articles themselves. The right place to request that someone else write the article is Wikipedia:Requested articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Where have the scholars gone?

Since my adventures begin here at WP I have noticed an enormous amount of seemingly uneducated editors. Please tell me that there are still a large number of educated editors out there. I would hate to think that all of my hard work will eventually be overrun by idiocracy. I know this is off-subject but I am questioning whether or not my work will just end up being thwarted eventually. --Xavier (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

In the course of trying to clean up so many articles that my current projects have basically abandoned, I have begun to ponder the thought, did they give up for the same reasons? --Xavier (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I feel like a lone soldier in all of my projects trying to desperately fend off the uneducated ones who are constantly adding original research that I have to continuously spend time undoing. Rather than spending time adding to articles, I find I am spending more time undoing bad edits. I will not give up so easily but, I do need to hear that I am not alone. --Xavier (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am tired of trying to educate all of these original researchers. I spend more time typing and explaining things to editors than I have available. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. --Xavier (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I know how you feel. I am going to throw my phone through the window if I see one more 10 year old writing some incomprehensible garbage in a plot summary. Note to self: never EVER look at a Twilight article again. The problem is, a lot of people writing the books we use for sources are not doing their own research. They are rehashing something that somebody else wrote (a phenomenon very common in the horse world). So it's a vicious cycle. Editors get frustrated at the bad sources, so they do their own research. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 16:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@White Arabian mare: Thank you for the agreement. I really need to know if I am a small number and it seems I am. --Xavier (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@White Arabian mare: This would be a great time for one of those college pre-game pep-talks. (chuckles) --Xavier (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@White Arabian mare: Maybe some of the articles I am working on need to be protected? --Xavier (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not a new issue. Editors who have never edited Wikipedia before cannot be expected to understand Wikipedia norms they have not been told about before. Your weariness at the fact that new people are born, and grow up, and thus need to be educated doesn't change this. --Jayron32 16:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32: You make a good point but, it is not relevant to why I posted and the questions I am asking --Xavier (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I assume that the comment about protecting the articles on which you are working is facetious. Full protection will lock you as well as inexperienced editors out. Semi-protection is of very limited value against incompetent editors, because they will very soon get autoconfirmed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Some of these articles are not even Semi-protected and honestly, I think they are being vandalized by users who are not auto-confirmed. --Xavier (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

In that case, you are referring to two different problems that are both frustrating. The first is vandalism, which is normally by unregistered editors. The approach to vandalism is to revert the vandalism, report the vandal to WP:AIV, and request semi-protection of the page. The other problem, which is in my view harder to deal with, is incompetent editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

To the point of competency, that's what I was talking about above. People who have not been educated cannot be held to the standard of competency. When a new user shows up, and makes a mess of things, the proper course of action is to educate them on how to do it correctly, not to get upset with them for not knowing what no one told them. I appreciate that the work is never ending, but how could it be any other way? New users don't get born with the knowledge of how to edit Wikipedia correctly. The problems noted above, with constantly having to clean up after new editors who screw things up, is how it has always been, and will always be. One cannot expect that to change, nor should one ever expect it to change, because no matter how long Wikipedia exists, people will still not be born with the knowledge of how to do it right, and will still need to be educated. The OPs frustration at having to deal with this may be a genuine frustration, but it is misplaced as one cannot expect any different, nor should anyone. --Jayron32 17:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Again, you are correct, but I think my message got misunderstood. I am not upset at any editors nor have I shown them such behavior. I have always followed guidelines and done exactly what you suggested. In fact, that brings me to my point again. I am not on Wikipedia to educate my fellow editors on how to edit, rather I am here to improve articles. I could definitely devote my time to helping new editors learn how to edit but, I want to spend more of my time doing other important tasks. --Xavier (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32: On that note, I think The Teahouse is doing a fine job of taking care and helping the new editors, the ones that seek help that is. --Xavier (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. It may seem like that shouldn't work, but it's got us this far. Comparable projects with more exclusive memberships have tried and, frankly, failed. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I personally see more of a problem with editors who cannot write properly because their English as a Second Language is not good enough, than of editors who appear not to have finished Anglophone high school, but that is just my observation. Both can be frustrating, and it is hard to be patient and do not bite them too hard. (Once an editor cites the bite essay in their own defense in response to friendly advice, I know that they are not a true newbie but a combative editor.) If they submit bad articles at Articles for Creation, decline them. If they enter bad articles in mainspace, follow any of the deletion procedures. If they make bad edits on top of your good edits, read the dispute resolution policy, and, as a last resort, a competence block may be needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case, they should be kindly directed to the correct Wikipedia for their native language. They may not even be aware that Wikipedias exist in their native language, and their contributions would be more welcome there, where the could contribute in a more constructive manner. --Jayron32 17:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you. I have a comment. The suggestion is occasionally made that editors whose English is not fluent should be directed to the Simple English Wikipedia. No. Readers whose English is limited can be directed to the Simple English Wikipedia. However, a level of command of English that is roughly equivalent with at least an Anglophone middle school or high school classes in English as a foreign language is at least as important to edit the Simple English Wikipedia as it is to edit the English Wikipedia. Editors who demonstrate that they can't write coherent English should be advised to contribute to Wikipedia in their native language (not in Simple English). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Please tell me that there are still a large number of educated editors out there. The straight answer, Xavier is that we don't know. WMF has little knowledge of the background of editors, especially in a longitudinal way (whether the average educational background of editors has changed over time). One doesn't even need an email account to edit on Wikipedia so WMF doesn't have demographic information on the age, gender, education, nationality, etc. of its editors although some academics have done some limited studies. It would be nice if this information has been collected since Wikipedia was founded almost 15 years ago but it goes against Wikipedia philosophy that anyone can edit Wikipedia anonymously. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Well that is the point of my post, I do not need a stats chart, or anything of that nature, calling out to the community through its social channels works well enough. --Xavier (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you want one data point: I'm a 39 year-old public school science teacher with 15 years of classroom teaching experience, and two degrees: A Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry, and a Masters Degree in Education, with a concentration in Instructional Leadership. Whether that qualifies me as "educated enough" to be able to read, summarize, and cite reliable sources for Wikipedia articles I will leave for you to decide. Still, my bona fides aren't much of anything. I know people with Master's Degrees who aren't intelligent enough to trust with boiling water correctly, while my parents and brother are all very well read and intelligent, though none of them has any certification beyond a high school diploma. And, though none of them do, I would consider them perfectly capable of being able to properly edit Wikipedia. A degree is just a piece of paper that says you jumped through the hoops in the correct order, and it is no indication of ability or intelligence. --Jayron32 20:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32: @LukeSurl: @Robert McClenon: Thank you for the links and info. On that subject this project is getting way over my head! I probably should reduce my goals a little bit as they are so numerous and are taking over all of my time. I have literally spent the last 8 days overhauling my projects and have spent almost zero time editing articles. Yikes! --Xavier (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia is the only project that can truly achieve the encyclopedic goal. --Xavier (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It would seem that there are still a number of members who have some sort of education judging by the length of this discussion. I have already received plenty of material to read on, and have read all of your comments. Thank you all for helping me but for now I think this discussion is mute. I definitely need to get back to those important articles I was talking about. --Xavier (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox edit

I made an edit to a template for an userbox Template:User WikiProject Metal. The syntax appears to be fine but, the change is not reflected on the external userboxes, such as the one on my user page. I refreshed and double checked my syntax. What gives? P.S. I made the edit at least over 8 hours ago. --Xavier (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The syntax was written long ago by someone else, maybe it is outdated? --Xavier (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Xavier enc. It's called a userbox. An infobox is the box at the top right of articles. When a template has been edited, pages using it may have to be purged to propagate the changes quickly. I disagree with some of your changes. WikiProject Metal is an entity where "WikiProject" is part of the name. We don't usually say "the" before a WikiProject name. {{User WikiProject Metal}} uses colored text so links are the same color as other text. That means that the removal of bolding makes it hard to identify the link. All userboxes I examined in Category:WikiProject user templates use bolding of the WikiProject name, even those where there is also different color for links. WP:METAL is a convenient shortcut users can write faster, for example in the search box, but it's a redirect and gives a "Redirected from" message at top of the target. I don't ses reason to replace the full title with the shortcut in a piped link in a template used on many pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I will agree. As for infoboxes that was a typo, oops! I only added the "the" because I see a lot of other userboxes this way, why do they do this? I will make the links bold again. --Xavier (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: A lot of the syntax was written by an unknown editor so I am trying to clean it up. So far the color is removed and the links are bold again. As for "the", still not sure as my other projects userboxes have been doing this for quite some time. --Xavier (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The links are differently colored now but not bold. "member" shouldn't be bold and I think the WikiProject name only has to be at least one of bold and differently colored so it seems OK. I'm not sure which userboxes with "the" you refer to. On User:Xavier enc I only see {{User WPMusInst}} which says: "This user is a member of the Musical Instruments WikiProject". It doesn't use the actual name of the WikiProject, so "WikiProject" becomes a description instead of part of the name. With the actual name I guess it would have said: "This user is a member of WikiProject Musical Instruments". PrimeHunter (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: That is funny you only see one userbox because I actually have 4. I will make more changes that you suggested. --Xavier (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I mean only one which says "the". PrimeHunter (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I see! You are right! By the way, I used a trick I read about that fixes the issue, just simply edit the page the userbox is on without making any edits, then save. It works every time. --Xavier (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That trick is called a null edit. It's a "stronger" version of a purge which I linked earlier and also works in this situation. There are other situations where a null edit is required. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Woot! Look at my userbox edits now. I think I cleaned up a lot. --Xavier (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

King James Version the Book of James in the New Testament

Who is the judge of everyone? Who is charge of the future? 97.81.192.63 (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, 97.81.192.63, welcome to the Teahouse! This is a forum where new editors can ask questions about editing Wikipedia. You might have more luck with your questions at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities although these are pretty philosophical questions.

Do you have any more practical questions about this editing Wikipedia? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::the help desk reference desk might be able to direct you to philosophy discussion forums where questions such as yours are welcome. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, TheRedPenOfDoom the Help Desk is not for this type of question either. Liz is correct.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

oops, i was thinking reference desk! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

How do I save my changes to the article?

Everytime I click the save button the window just pops up again and asks another CAPTCHA question, incredibly irritatingDamcn174 (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Please explain in more detail. What browser do you use? Computer type? What exactly is happening? --Xavier (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

A common (but not the only) cause of this is people trying to add a blacklisted website, as an external link or reference - try a small, very simple, edit, without any references - does that work? - Arjayay (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Damcn174: Thanks for stopping by to ask this question. Per Arjayjay, this is a common problem which isn't apparent unless you have been introduced to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. Wikipedia maintains a list of websites we do not allow to be linked to in order to limit abuse of Wikipedia; usually this means that a) the site is of no utility as a reliable source and b) Someone has tried to spam the site on Wikipedia, that is use Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote their website. When someone tries to save an edit containing a blacklisted website, the software "kicks back" the edit. It should (if I recall correctly) post a warning about why it was kicked back, but this warning is often so obfuscatory in its technical language, users often ignore it; it isn't always clear it is a warning, nor does it easily explain what the problem is or how to fix it. My suggestion is, leave out any websites URLs from the edit you are trying to make, if that works, then you know the source of the problem. I hope this helps! --Jayron32 17:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked yet, but this seems like a good spur to hunt down the MediaWiki page (or whatever) and clarify its output.---Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it's MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext. I think it's pretty clear if someone bothers to read it. People become very used to entering captchas and ignoring surrounding text. Maybe the first line should be made significantly larger, underlined, and prefixed with a shouting "READ THIS", etc.; some form of attention grabber.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Fuhghettaboutit's comment just above. It needs a short, sharp summary, and maybe then a link to the fuller explanation. --Thnidu (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Trying to create a wikipedia actor page

I'm trying to create a wikipedia page for myself. I'm an actress and am mentioned on a feature film page I'm in and saw an opportunity to link it a wikipedia page of my own. I'm not sure how to format it to it has the sections like 'early life' 'career' etc. At the moment it's under 'grace gray' and I'm being flagged as doing it wrong. No clue whatsoever! :)

Thank you! 12.185.51.138 (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP user at 12.185.51.138, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are two main issues here. The first is that the subject of any article on Wikipedia needs to meet what we call our notability standard, which can be summed up as stating that there must be substantial coverage of the subject in multiple sources independent of the subject, and that those sources must be what Wikipedia considers reliable sources.

The second issue is that anyone with a close tie to the subject of an article is strongly discouraged from creating or editing the article themselves. This is Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy.

If there are enough reliable sources that have devoted significant coverage to your career, however, I might be willing, as an uninvolved editor, to finish creating the article about you. In that case I would move Grace Gray to Draft:Grace Gray until it had proper citations to those reliable sources establishing notability, so that the article wouldn't simply be deleted, as is currently likely. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Grace Gray has been proposed for deletion under WP:BLPPROD as an unsourced biography of a living person and will be deleted in seven days unless improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, User:Cinderellastory16, you posted this question to the Teahouse without logging in. Since you have a registered account, please log in and use it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I would so appreciate that, and understand what you are saying. Thank you for explaining it simply! If you were to google my name 'Grace Gray' there are multiple other platforms and sources that verify who I am and my career (IMDB, getty images at film festival events, screenings etc, aswell as all my websites and social media platforms..).

What can I do to help? 38.125.121.5 (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Grace. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not accept references from IMDB or (usually) from social media platforms, because they are not reliable sources; and will accept references in only a limited way from your website, because it is not independent of you. Essentially, Wikipedia has almost no interest in what a person says about themselves (or what their friends, relatives or associates say about them) and is only interested in what people who have no connection with them have published about them. If there is little such independent material, then no article on them will be accepted, however it is written; which means that sites that verify who you are and what you have done are probably not enough either, though they could be used to support specific information if other sources confirmed your notability (in Wikipedia's special sense). --ColinFine (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, please remember to log in before editing. As you can see, you are editing under multiple unrelated IP addresses (probably from two locations). Since you have a registered account, please use it. I realize that you are probably just forgetting to do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I recommend having an unrelated editor write the article about it due to the Conflict of interest rule here on Wikipedia See the Article here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zppix (talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

1. bonkhe_magongo

Write about the latest things that every one is talking aboutBonkhe magongo (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

writing an article

What are subjects that i can use in making my artacle interesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonkhe magongo (talk • contribs) 07:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It is depended on the type of article .--Aryan ^from हि है (talk) 09:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Bonkhe magongo, and welcome to the Teahouse. Is there is a specific article that you are looking for help with, or are you trying to find an interesting topic to write an article about? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

AfD

Hi, I've recently noticed the article Animal treatment in rodeo is in pretty bad shape. It was created and mostly written by a now-banned sockpuppet (Buttermilk1850) of ItsLassieTime, who is permanently banned. The other editor who worked significantly on it has apparently left Wikipedia since then. I see the following issues with the article:

1. It violates NPOV. It's written like an animal rights propaganda piece.
2. The creator and primary author was a sock who is known for POV pushing and copyright violation.
3. The subject has already been covered in the main rodeo article.

What I want to know is, should I nominate this article for deletion, or can it be saved? I'm looking for some opinions on this. Thanks, White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi White Arabian Mare,

Thanks for coming by the Teahouse. I can see that this article has had ongoing issues with NPOV, but I don't think deletion is the appropriate response. The treatment of animals in rodeo is an issue that has been debated and studied extensively and merits inclusion. It looks like you're something of an expert in animal, horse, and farm issues - the best bet would be to use that expertise and skill to help find sources to better balance the article. Given that the user in question has been banned (along with their sockpuppet) there should be less concern around your edits being reverted.

I'll own my bias in that I almost always lean toward inclusionism, but I welcome other opinions. Arianna the First (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Arianna the First that the topic is obviously one that should be in the encyclopedia. Is the article so hopeless that the current content/structure/history will so poison the well that nothing good can grow from this? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Arianna the First. I am typically an inclusionist too. I've decided to try to edit the article; I started by removing the section that was using PETA as a source, because I don't think anybody could consider them reliable. I plan to do more tomorrow, like finding some newspaper or magazine articles to use as sources.

TRPoD, I think that it may be saveable. I'm going to try anyway.

White Arabian mare (Neigh) 02:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

White Arabian mare, I agree that the topic is notable. Even if the opposition by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, cited to sources they control, are neither independent nor reliable, there are certainly reliable sources that report on PETA's opposition to traditional rodeos. So, neutral description of their opinions should be included in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328, I left the independently sourced section about Peta's protests, like the news report of them smashing a tofu pie in Miss Rodeo America's face. I removed the part that was simply giving a long list of what Peta claims rodeo does to animals, which was using their website as a source and not citing any other sources. There is still coverage of Peta's opposition. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 13:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:CHI St. Luke's Health

I declined this draft at Articles for Creation, because it was tagged as having close paraphrasing. User:Kbkrenek has asked for input, and, in accordance with my talk page banner, I am asking for the advice of other experienced editors here. It appears from their talk page that a previous draft of the article was nominated for speedy deletion due to copyvio, and, in particular, the list of awards is taken directly from the hospital's web site. Since the timestamp of that notice precedes the creation of the current draft, my assumption is that the previous draft was in fact speedied. Since there is agreement that the list of awards is copyrighted, and it isn't always easy to rewrite the descriptions of long awards, one possibility would be to provide a very short summary of the awards, but to provide an external link to the web site's own list of awards. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: If the article's writer is affiliated with the hospital then the article should not be accepted. The article needs to be written by someone who is not affiliated with the hospital. --Xavier (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know whether the author is affiliated with the hospital. It is true that if the author is affiliated with the hospital, that is a conflict of interest. It is also true that the simplest way to provide access to copyrighted web sites is to make them available as external links within the guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

A conflict of interest is not in and of itself a reason for an article to be declined, Xavier. WP:COI strongly discourages COI editing, but it doesn't prohibit it altogether. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you did well to decline that, Robert McClenon, for several reasons:

• it's unambiguously promotional (a good candidate for G11 in my personal opinion)
• it's excessively based on self-published or connected sources
• it contains substantial copyright violations (see this useful tool; it may be worth noting that it's already been deleted twice as G12
• most, though probably not all, of what it is trying to say is already covered in our articles on Baylor St. Luke's Medical Center and The Texas Heart Institute (which also seems to have copyright problems, I'll look further in a minute)
• I believe it is reasonable to ask any editor whose first edit here is a 42k advertisement whether he or she is (a) connected to the topic and (b) editing here for financial reward. Kbkrenek, do you have any personal or professional connection to CHI St. Luke's Health or any company connected with it? If so, you must declare it.

Robert, to try to answer your question about copyright in lists: in general, lists of factual information are not copyrightable (e.g., the telephone directory, the discography of a singer, or the list of hospitals in that draft), because they contain no creative content; if there's running text (as in the awards section there), or if the list is selective ("selected discography") or based on subjective judgement or weightings ("my ten favourite cocktails", "the 100 greatest albums of all time", "the world's most friendly cities"), then copyright probably applies. The best thing to do with those awards, though, is to remove them. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, the article needs to be written by someone who is not affiliated with the hospital. And as stated by an earlier comment, their already is substantial information on the hospital in another article. --Xavier (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Xavier, you are still very new to Wikipedia; you should give more consideration to what more experienced editors have to say. Cordless Larry was correct that Wikipedia policy only strongly discourages COI editors from creating articles, and does not forbid them from doing so. Using the AfC process ensures that even when created by an editor with a COI, a draft article will not become a mainspace article if it is still missing reliable third-party sources, or is filled with promotional puffery or copyright violations, or any of the other problems frequently seen with articles created by novice COI editors outside the AfC process. If the subject is notable in the first place, there are worse things than to have several rounds of AfC review transform a COI editor's contributions into something barely distinguishable from what might have been written by an uninvolved editor. I have worked with a number of COI editors and turned out what I think are some helpful articles that improve the encyclopedia. Be as wary of bias against COI editors as you are of COI editors' contributions; remember that we are all expected to assume good faith about one another. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: Thank you for the wealth of information. However, my previous comments were simply just reiterating WP guidelines, which I have read all of in a thorough manner. Again, I use the word "should" as it is a guideline. Whether or not I am new is irrelevant. On that note, just because I am new to WP does not mean I do not know what I am talking about, or doing. Thank you again for the info but I have read all of the guidelines on this subject.

P.S. I have no bias agendas.--Xavier (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascistr: To add, your statements are very true but, I do not think they apply in this situation since I have done neither of what you cited. Please understand that I am trying to reiterate WP guidelines, not make my own assumptions. --Xavier (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Xavier, I'm sorry, but there is no basis in the guidelines for suggesting that a draft article should be declined based solely on the fact that the creator has a potential conflict of interest. One of the advantages of the articles for creation process is that it allows such situations to be monitored and to ensure that a CoI does not result in a POV article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascistr: Again, I pointed out two reasons, not one. Those two reasons and the afore mentioned articles that are related, combined give a reason for deletion. Also as I pointed out, there is a consensus brewing that agrees. Now, I must be getting back to higher agendas for my projects.--Xavier (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Criteria for speedy deletion

I got this on one of my articles i just wrote how do i get rid of it...i looked though it a i have followed all the guidelines.I need help!Eroncam3 (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eroncam3: I don't think you have. There is not one footnote to a reliably published source as is the minimum requirement for a stand alone article. Without such coverage no Wikipedia article can exist.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Criteria for speedy deletion 1

I'm getting this come up and I don't know what to do? Eroncam3 (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Eroncam3: and welcome to the Teahouse!

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not merely a directory of stuff. In order to have a stand alone article the subject must meet some basic criteria. The content that you posted fails to make a credible claim that the subject has encyclopedic value. You can request that rather than speedy deletion, the content is moved to your User space to give you more time to provide the sourcing required for an article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Folks, I take on board brushing up on ref'ing better and will take advise.

I note that many startup (not yet flying) airlines are listed on wikipedia. Why should CobaltAir be different? I'm working on a couple of projects, locally Tus is included on the 'list of airlines in Cyprus', has a page and is not operational. Bishwo (nepal) is another project I'm involved with and it too is listed and far from operational. Have I listed under an incorrect heading perhaps? agree it's not notable! Thanks for your time and consideration. Thirstyforeigner Thirstyforeigner (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Thirstyforeigner. Whether an airline is operational or not is of no consequence of itself. All that matters is whether people unconnected with the airline have thought it worth publishing substantial material about it. Tus Airways has three references, at least one of which appears to be independent (though it does not say very much). But among our five million article there are many which are not satisfactory - if you find an existing article which does not meet our criteria for notability, you are welcome to argue that it should be deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't say anything about the article that was nominated for speedy deletion, because it was deleted. However, I will note that I didn't nominate Draft:CobaltAir for speedy deletion. I only declined it via Articles for Creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

VFX Articles?

I am very interested in visual effects - CGI, stop motion, models, miniatures, animation, etc., and I'd like to know how myself or other people could improve on these articles. I figured out that adding a list of commercials that a certain company has done would be WAAAAAAY too long for this site and probably of extremely little interest. Would adding a list of films and TV shows that a particular company has contributed be OK? I added the feature film filmography of Pacific Data Images on the Wikipedia page for this company, used a lot of sources and did a lot of research on IMDB, TCM and BFI, and I'd like to know if that's OK for articles like this. WhiteWool1997 (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @WhiteWool1997:, welcome to the Teahouse!

The major test for a Wikipedia article is: Have reliably published sources talked specifically about the subject in an in-depth manner?

One article that can use some tender loving care is the main article Special effect - it is severely lacking in citations to reliably published sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, WhiteWool1997. In addition to what others have said, I would answer your specific questions thus:

• A full list of works or products is rarely appropriate in a Wikipedia article. Unless the list is short, only selected items should be in the article.
• In any case, only those items should be mentioned that a reliable independent source can be found for: the company's own website is not adequate for this, and nor is IMDB (which is not regarded as a reliable source). In my opinion, finding the company in the credits for the film or series would not be adequate either (it would demonstrate that the company had contributed to the film or series, but not that their contribution was notable) but I don't think everybody would agree with me. But by far the best would be an independent critique that mentioned some of their contributions. --ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Nahimana: How can I make this page as good as possible?

Hey Teahouse,

My name is Nicole and I need to write a wikipedia page about Thomas Nahimana. Nahimana is running for President of Rwanda in the 2017 election. There isn't much information published about Nahimana specifically, and even less in English. I am working on the page now. It's a draft. I found a couple wordpress sites that I'm citing, and I'm also citing reputable articles about his biggest competitors for the election. Can I cite Nahimana himself for providing me with information about his age, schooling, etc?

Thanks for your help.

Cnd2015 (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Cnd2015: and welcome to the Teahouse!

Almost universally*, Wikipedia only accepts content that is verifiable as having been previously published in reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. Blogs are almost certainly not appropriate and will not help to establish that the subject meets the requirements for a stand alone article. You may also be interested in WP:POL. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

* Wikipedia would not accept that Nahimana had sent you an e-mail that "confirmed" facts. If your email encouraged Nahimana to post facts on a website that is positively identifiable as his official website, non-promotional information bits about Nahimana could be cited to his website, but that would do nothing to help establish that Nahimana meets the requirements for a stand alone article in the first place. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Cnd2015, I'd just like to add one comment to TRPoD's advice. It is not unusual for there to be little information in reliable sources about an election that will be held in two years. While it might not be possible to gather verifiable data today, that doesn't mean that a fact-based article can't be written at some point in the future, as the election nears. However, Wikipedia is not a good tool to get word out about an upcoming event if it hasn't been discussed in mainstream newspapers, books or other secondary sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

And, Nicole, if your purpose in writing the article is to get him better known, or to help his campaign in any way, that would count as promotion, and is strictly forbidden anywhere in Wikipedia. (I don't know that that is your intention, but your use of the phrase "I need to" suggests that it is. Apologies if my assumption is wrong). Wikipedia has almost no interest in what a person (or a band, school, company, or anything else) wants to say about themselves: it is only interested in what people unconnected with the subject have published. --ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

ColinFine Hey, ColinFine, thanks for your help! To be honest, I was asked by a friend of his to write the article. I am definitely a third party with no bias in the upcoming election. My intention for writing the article would be to provide information in English about Thomas Nahimana to those interested when they google him. The problem is, Rwanda really does not have a proliferation of reputable new sources that publish information about candidates opposing the incumbent. I'll see what I can do by looking through international new sources, and I will work with others to help translate interviews, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnd2015 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 4 November 2015‎ (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources, even not in English, that's fine, Cnd2015; but "to provide information ... about Thomas Nahimana to those interested when they google him" is pretty much a definition of promotion - only the words "In English" (which I omitted) may save it from that. --ColinFine (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

About Blocking

How many times can you be warned for vandalism or any disruptive editing before your user gets blocked? User:ChuckNoll vs Vince Lombardi 17:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ChuckNoll vs Vince Lombardi. There is no hard and fast number of warnings that automatically leads to a block. It depends on individual circumstances and how serious the disruption is. The way to avoid blocks is to avoid disruption and misrepresentation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi! It depends on many factors. The normal low-level vandal will generally get 2 or 3 warnings. But more serious disruption may result in an immediate preventative block.

The best bet is never to vandalise. (My definition: deliberately making Wikipedia worse.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC).

It is clear that you are deliberately testing the limits to what you can and cannot do. I am not an administrator. I would block you for one year to give you a chance to come back when you are sixteen. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

accusation of original research

I have been accused of original research in the article "Instrumentalism" when I report what someone has written and the response of others to it. I don't find that charge accurate, and wish to engage others in the discussion. How can I do that?TBR-qed (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@TBR-qed: Can you please link to the page? --Xavier (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It's Instrumentalism, Xavier. TBR-qed, the place to engage others in discussion is on the article's talk page, which you appear to have contributed to regarding this issue in the past. If you want wider input into those discussions, consider posting about the article at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Non-english sources

Hi, I'm a newcomer and I wanted to know if I can use sources which aren't in the English language.Gwoomba (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Gwoomba, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is that yes, you can. They do need to meet the criteria set out at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, however - as do all sources, regardless of language. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

That said, if English-language sources of equal quality to the foreign-language ones are available, they are preferred. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources for more on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Cordless Larry!Gwoomba (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Can't find anything about a deleted article

Hello,

I am told that a recent article written about Wil Maring (a musical performer from Illinois) was deleted and I am trying to find the original and either restore or fix it. Batting zero. Who gets to delete articles?

i am also told that the original article was thoughtful and lengthy (whatever THAT means) so I am hoping to find the original and fix it. Author unknown.

Thanks, Joe Joetho (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The article in question is Wil Maring. If you click on the red link, it will show you the deletion history. It was deleted in 2008 as providing no information as to notability, and in 2014 as an unsourced biography of a living person. For information on the deletion of articles in general, see WP:Deletion. You can go to Requests for Undeletion to ask to have the article moved into your user space to work on it. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You "were told" by whom? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The two attempts at creating an article on this musician were never more than three sentences long and have contained no sources at all. Joetho, if you can find reliable sources about the person, it would be easier to write an article afresh than to request userfication of the previous attempts. Deor (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Joetho, with regard to your question about "who gets to delete articles" - the answer is the people with the mops clean up the messes identified by other users. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• and as navigation trick, if you go to the deleted page Wil Maring, click on the sidebar "what links here" it will take you to this page: Special:WhatLinksHere/Wil_Maring where a little investigation shows that one of the versions of the page was most likely created or edited by User_talk:Tracymacl#Proposed_deletion_of_Wil_Maring who received a notice of its pending deletion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Joetho, I took a quick look at the deleted article and concur with the advice above. There's not much worth saving. The best approach is to start over. Make sure to check out Wikipedia:Your_first_article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: I didn't know that. Now I do. Thanks. --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Editing help requested re: Article for Deletion

Help! My article was accepted but then moved to Articles for Deletion for discussion. Where can I find help with edits to make the article more neutral? Any advice welcome! This is my first teahouse visit so I'm a novice here. I hope I can locate where any replies are sent. Thanks in advance MarilynStableinMarilyn Stablein (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Marilyn Stablein and welcome to the Teahouse.

A major problem with this article is that it appears to be an autobiography. While you are not forbidden from writing an article about yourself, this is strongly discouraged, unless you are correcting an obvious factual error. An article a person writes bout themself, however well-meaning they may be, usually does not meet the requirements of the neutral point of view, a core policy of Wikipedia (this means the viewpoints should be presented without talking a side.) It is very hard to write neutrally about yourself. An autobiography may also be unverifiable: everything on Wikipedia must be able to be checked by its readers, and it is possible to include facts in an article about yourself that only you know; while they may be true, people are required to be able to look them up. Another problem is that articles written as autobiographies can contain original research: this is what a person thinks themself, or has researched, and is not permitted on Wikipedia in order for all articles to be verifiable. For these reasons, it is recommended that you suggest improvements at Talk:Marilyn Stablein, and collaborate with other editors, rather than continuing to edit the article directly: this is likely to help.

One of the article's main problems concerns the referencing, in that many of the references are to primary or self-published sources. A primary source is a source that is directly related to the article's subject; for example, a press release for a person or business would be seen as a primary source. A self-published source is a source published either by the person or business the article is about or by an individual or business affiliated to them. Both of these sources affect an article's verifiability: for example, a business' significance could be exaggerated by a self-published souce intending to promote their business. One way in which the article could be improved is through the addition of secondary sources: sources not directly connected to the subject. For example, a newspaper could write about a business or individual solely because that business or individual is considered newsworthy, and not because of any affiliation they have to them.

A more quickly fixable problem is the article's wording: statements such as "a number of" could be seen as peacock terms, meaning they promote something without supplying real information, although this is often not intended. Statements such as these should generally be replaced with specific statistics, if possible, with an inline citation.

I hope this helps, and feel free to ask if you have any more questions, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I want to take out all the External links and put ISBN # for books to begin. Also take out the "a number of" phrases. Can I go ahead and do this or should I wait to collaborate with an editor? How do I find an editor to collaborate with? Marilyn Stablein (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a difficult question and a difficult case. This is the best autobiography I have ever seen in Wikipedia, but it is an autobiography. It should be the best autobiography that I have ever seen, after having been declined and resubmitted so many times, and the author, who is a professional writer, does seem actually finally to respond to the comments and criticisms. I would have declined it, simply because it is an autobiography, but I can see that this is a case of ignore all rules, since the autobiography guideline does not forbid autobiographies. It only strongly discourages them. My comments to the original poster (that is, Ms. Stablein) are, first, a few suggestions have been made on the talk page and in the AFD, and, second, you shouldn't be surprised that it was nominated for deletion, since the autobiography guideline strongly discourages autobiographies, and since you had it quoted to you so many times. My more general comment is that the closer of the AFD has a hard job to do, because the autobiography guideline strongly discourages but does not forbid autobiographies, and, after more than a year, this is the best autobiography that we have seen in Wikipedia in a long time. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Please will editors who enjoy editing challenging articles continue to join in, and improve Marilyn Stablein - the article so that it is elevated to our full standards. My skills are not in that arena or I would join in myself. I can see what I believe is required, and have said so on the article's talk page, but feel I am insufficiently skilled to put this into practice. There most assuredly is an article here. WP:BIO is fine, but, now the article is in main namespace it is hard for the autobiographer to make any edits without falling foul of COI issues. Fiddle Faddle 22:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

How to use Vector/Victor

How do I use Vector the editing tool? We Hail Wikipedia! (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello We Hail Wikipedia! and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortuntaley this tool is no longer active and therefore cannot be used on Wikipedia: see WP:Vector. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not correct, We Hail Wikipedia!. Vector is a skin, not a tool, and has been the default skin since 2010, so unless you have actively changed your skin, that is what you are using --ColinFine (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

User pages pretending to be admins or other misrepresentation's ?

Hi, I've been looking and can't find if there actually any policy of having things on your user page that say/imply that you are an administrator? Similarly for other false claims of work done on Wikipedia? I just noticed the following two cases:

• User:ChuckNoll vs Vince Lombardi below has claims of "25× Administators Barnstar" as well as others that look fictitious.
• User:VampireProject23 has a large number of false claims to being an admin, arb com, commons admin, etc

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It is worth noting this edit by User:ChuckNoll vs Vince Lombardi where he admitted they were fake barnstars that he had awarded to himself (95 from one account and 3 from another). He deleted them from his user talk page, after some pressure, but continues to list them on his user page, as if they were genuine. - Arjayay (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the claims of being an admin etc from User:VampireProject23. in general you can report instances like this at WP:ANI. Nthep (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nthep, thanks - I just wasn't sure if there was a policy to justify a report or not to WP:ANI. It has no direct effect on me or probably any editor that's been around a while, but I just thought it was not a good thing for new editors that could be mislead by such claims. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

And User:ChuckNoll vs Vince Lombardi has removed the claims - Arjayay (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Both of these editors are pushing the limits of what they can do. One of them is clearly pushing the limits on purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

User:VampireProject23's userpage has been nominated for miscellany for deletion. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 23:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

blocks?

can you get blocked for helping but doing somthing wrong if you did not khow it was very worred thanks. Kaiwen0115 (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kaiwen0115: it depend upon what the "something" was. WP:SOCKing for instance will get the sock account blocked at a minimum. Most first time blocks however, are for short periods and can appealed and shortened if the blocked person demonstrates they have learned and are unlikely to go back to disrupting. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, Kaiwen0115, if another editor believes that you have acted inappropriately, in most cases you should receive a warning message on your user talk page advising you to stop. As long as you take notice of such messages and explain your behaviour if there has been a misunderstanding, you should be OK. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, @Kaiwen0115:, and thanks for bringing this to the TeaHouse. Looking over your edit history, it seems that the article you are concerned about is probably Temperate rainforest. There are two issues with these edits, and neither is so serious that it would result in being blocked - you're new to Wikipedia so you are not expected to know all our practices yet. The first issue is that you replaced the existing information with different information without adequate reference (a citation with nearly all the details missing or "forgot" is not verifiable). The second issue is that you were starting to get into an "edit war" - this is where editors repeatedly make and revert the same changes. A better approach is to start a discussion on the article's Talk page. Explain specifically what changes should be made and why, and the references to support it (you will have to do a little more homework for that part). Other editors can put in their comments and references. Different references may give different information, so the editors can discuss how to reconcile those differences. Then once there is consensus about how to handle it, the article is updated accordingly. I hope this helps - if you have specific questions, please feel free to come back and ask them here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)