This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
More help required please - this time with dealing with bizarre allegations
Topic closed, Ornaith has been blocked under a checkuser block
I've had some excellent advice here before, and am hoping I can take advantage of this service yet again please. As I mentioned in a previous request here, I sort of got sucked into the vortex of editing articles, not because I was interested in their subject much, but because I though the coverage was wrong. Well I'm still in it.
Now though it has taken another bizarre twist. An editor who, in my opinion, has been rather forceful, and rather dismissive of Wikipedia protocol and policies in his desperation to enforce his will, has now resorted to making outrageous allegations about me in an article talk page to try to defend his behaviour. He has produced a crop of links back to disputes that he had way back in October 2011 (I didn't even join until early April 2012), and seems to be suggesting that I am either impersonating or actually am one of his earlier adversaries (he now refers to me as "Ornaith aka xxx [someone else]". He has been admonished by another contributor, but there are others involved who seem to sympathise with his actions. My question is this: is there anything that I could do, or should do, to get this sort of thing stopped. It is getting to me a tad, and I'm beginning to wonder if being involved in Wikipedia is really a good idea after all this upsetting intimidation. Ornaith (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ornaith. Firstly, don't take it personally, there are all sorts editing on Wikipedia, working with them without getting into dispute is more of an art than a science. Secondly try to separate the content issue from the dispute. For if the content issue consensus can be demonstrated, then that will be the outcome, and the meta-disputes (should) become irrelevant. As suggested on the talk page an RFC may well help if the issue seems thorny, and the disputants few. RichFarmbrough, 21:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC).
On the other hand, the rest of the conversation is extremely long and there are countless sources and diffs that I would have to read in order to make suggestions without further information from you. I can better help you if you concisely try to describe to me exactly what you think is wrong with the article, as I can not tell by skimming the conversation. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 21:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
@Hajatvrc, I just followed your link about "Sockpuppet investigations" (ah! "SPI", that was to be another question) - it talks about "the abuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts". That sounds ominous. Is that honestly a possible consequence of Martinvl's wild allegations? I don't see anything about my account there though, presumably if I am to be accused of, or charged with, something I will be invited to participate in a "hearing", of some sort?
Anyway, that'll wait, it wasn't the article dispute as such that I was asking about, or what mischief Martinvl might be dreaming up, it was what I should do about the allegations he is making on the article talk page, whilst we are (or were) trying to agree an acceptable wording. Any ideas would be very welcome. Ornaith (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
@Rich and @Hajatvrc, thanks for your concern and advice. Sorry, in my fury yesterday, I forgot to say so then. I went straight to the link, and told them what I thought. Ornaith (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Ornaith was reblocked by a different admin almost immediately after NtheP posted this. Beyond that, the status is.... unclear. NtheP, if you feel it's appropriate I'll remove my comments and we'll let things get sorted out elsewhere. [n.b. now logged in and appending correct signature.] GaramondLethe20:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen the cool pie chart summarizing my edits, but I can't seem to find it again. Any ideas? ThanksKhballin (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Khballin. All you need to do is go to your contributions (linked at the of of every page under "my contributions"), scroll to the bottom of the page, and then click on "edit count". Hope this helps. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone! My account on Wikipedia is only about 1 week old and I'm not sure if I made enough edits to be Auto Confirmed for upload etc. but how do I know when I am Auto Confirmed?? And how do I know if my article has been successfully placed on the wikipedia website?? Robertlp202 (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Robert! Welcome to the Teahouse! First, I'd like to tell you that your account is autoconfirmed. That happened after you made your second edit. Second, you created the article at The Big Fix (2012 film) so yes, it is live. You may be interested in looking at File:Sebastian Lake talk page.png. I created the image to help explain some things to another user, but you may find it useful as well. RyanVeseyReview me!21:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there a delete OR merge flag?
Hello. I dislike the idea of marking someone's "baby" for deletion, but I run into 'articles' about minor characters in kids books that shouldn't exist. (The articles, not the books. LOL) Some of the info MIGHT be useful in the major article, though I question whether a short kids book needs a character list. But some people seem to love them. ANYWAY... I don't know which is better for the article, so I'm wondering if there's a tag for wishy-washy people like me that flags an article that either needs to be deleted or merged? Susan Kushner is an example. Why fix it up when it shouldn't exist anyway? Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tlqk! Great question, and yeah, I agree. First, take a gander at this from the notability guidelines about books - it states that characters shouldn't have their own articles unless they really really are notable (i.e. Frankenstein, Ebenezer Scrooge or even Ramona Quimby (which can use improvement)). Instead of deleting the article, let's propose that it gets merged into the Ramona_(novel_series) article. How does that sound? SarahStierch (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and here are the directions on creating a merge proposal. After a week of so we can look at the votes (if any) and close it - either merging the content into the article and redirecting the merged article into the Ramona novel article, or we have to leave it where it's at if the community opposes the merge. We also should inform anyone involved in contributing to that article and Ramona books about the proposed merge. It's probably good for you to do the merge proposal yourself, and I'm happy to place my vote when needed :) SarahStierch (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Sarah. Ask a question - go to the dentist - come home and find an answer; I love Teahouse! Anyway, does it matter that I wrote most of Ramona_(novel_series), (but not the character list)? Would that look bad for some reason if I proposed combining the two? Personally I think they should all be merged, even Ramona Quimby. But certainly the others. They even made an article for her cat! Would you suggest leaving the Ramona character article separate or not? I will bite the bullet and make the proposal, for the sake of improving the main article(s). Thanks again. Tlqk56 (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Ha! Hope the dentist wasn't too painful. Reminds me I need to make an appointment, myself. Don't feel bad or selfish - totally request a merge. And if the cat needs to be merged, go for it. Be bold :) SarahStierch (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Pardon me if I butt in here. I think one important thing to remember is that people seem to place an inordinate amount of value on the concept of a "stand alone article". It is ultimately a minor organization issue and not a major problem when deciding whether some piece of information needs its own page, or if it needs to go on an already existing page. The key to remember, without getting hung up on the alphabet soup of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, is to look to see how much well-referenced information there is on a subject, based on neutral, reliable, third-party sources. If there is enough source material to write a decent, stand-alone article, then do that. If there isn't much source material, like say, a small amount, but not enough to hang an entire article on, then add it to an existing article. If all I can write from the independent sources is a paragraph or two, it isn't worth starting a new article. With book characters, the key is how much writing is there about that character written from the point of view of critical analysis (i.e. people, not the author, analyzing and reviewing and writing about the character, not just using it in stories). Characters like Dracula and Hamlet and even Luke Skywalker and Homer Simpson have themselves been the subject of some considerable scholarship and analysis. On the flipside, characters like Greedo and Rabbi Hyman Krustovsky probably aren't themselves the subject of a lot of critical writing, so what needs to be said about them at Wikipedia can be said in a sentence or two at a "List of ... characters" article. --Jayron3223:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Jayron32, Thanks for jumping in. Your explanation is well stated. In this case, no material has been written about these characters outside of the novels themselves. Thank you for making the point of the guidelines so clear. I know I sometimes have to remind myself that WP is an encyclopedia, not just a repository of every interesting bit of info I can find or think up. :) Tlqk56 (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
article creation and article edit
Hello, I have two questions:
1) I created an article "catastrophizing" and it is still in article creation mode. How do I know when someone has accepted it or deleted it? It's not appearing on wikipedia yet, so how long will it take?
2) I significantly edited an article "Dans Le Noir" because it had multiple issues and was blatantly advertising. I think the issues that it had are all corrected, but there is still a flag at the top of the post saying, "multiple issues" should I delete that? What is the procedure for that? Do I do that or does someone else do that?
I want to keep on contributing to Wikipedia, but I want to see first how these two contributions are accepted/deleted/ before I put a bunch of effort. Just to get an idea of how things work, you know what I mean?
Hi!! First, great job on your first article. Keep this between you and me but it's approved now ;) So if you search for your article you'll find it!! Sometimes it takes a while, especially if the subjects are more complex or the articles are longer. Just be patient, usually. And the more articles you make you'll eventually not have to have your articles reviewed. Woo! I'm going to take a look at the Dans Le Noir article and I'll let you know if we can remove that template. Usually you just have to do it yourself once you feel you've done the job :) I have no clue what the short cut is for tildes on a mac. Perhaps someone can help us both with that :) SarahStierch (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sarah, thanks for your help! I was afraid it would be a lot more difficult than this. I'm not sure--when I want to reply to your reply, do I just do what I'm doing right now--edit the talk? Does it (the machine) let you know that you have a message from me? How do I make it look like a reply, with indents like yours? Is that the : ? ShalonSims (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey TAU! In what capacity? What do you mean are they any good? Thanks for stopping by..looking forward to a bit of clarification on your new question :) SarahStierch (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Do not apologize for how many questions you ask. It's awesome :) If people don't ask questions - we go out of business here at the Teahouse ;) Is there a specific article you are referring to? SarahStierch (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, Annoymous :) You're doing great! You're doing the right thing in assuming good faith wherever good faith is assumable. Using Twinkle, you have a wide array of warnings to choose from, so pick one that best matches the offending edit (test, vandalism, etc) and let the automation roll. If you'd don't believe an edit warrants a warning, then don't issue one: it's up to your own discretion benzband (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Secondary sources
Hi, I am writing an article for which I have found numerous secondary sources, namely articles, online. Although the original source for the articles were reliable, none of them currently exist on their publisher of origin websites. Rather, they all exist on third-party websites and such are subject to change. Are these to be considered reliable secondary sources since they can be no longer found on their original publisher websites?Planktonium (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Planktonium, and welcome to the Teahouse! Your question is kind of difficult because I really don't know what kind of websites these are. If they're simply repositories for these kinds of articles, then I'm pretty sure they'd be reliable. If you can't find the original articles because they're stuck behind a paywall (like in a journal such as JSTOR), someone with access to a database like that can help you. I have access to a pretty comprehensive group of databases through my local community college, so you could either email me or leave me a message with their titles and I could try to track the originals down. I hope this helps, and happy editing! Best, Keilana|Parlez ici16:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kellanal, I just came back to editing a couple of weeks ago and have been adding references (and lurking in the teahouse) and more detail to articles about one of my favorite authors Raymond Chandler. In one of the suggestions on a Wiki help page for literary references they mentioned Project Muse as a good source. I went there and saw many, many articles about Chandler's work but they all seemed to be from non-free journals so I ignored them. I just wanted to double check and make sure I understood your last comment. It sounds like if I found a journal article that I thought might add significantly to one or more Chandler articles I could possibly get the article from someone here? Is that correct and if so would the best way to get it be to leave another request here at the Teahouse? I don't have a specific article in mind right now, I didn't look at the abstracts in much detail once I saw the actual articles weren't free but if there is a good chance I could get them I'll take another more detailed look. thanks. Mdebellis (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mdebellis! :) That's exactly what you can do. You could either ask a user who you know has access to a specific journal, ask here in the teahouse, or ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. There's a really good chance that someone will have access to what you need, and then can just email it to you. I hope this helps! Keilana|Parlez ici18:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I am not sure what to do about this Yu-Gi-Oh! Sky Island article (and did not know where it was appropriate to bring it up). The only "reference" it provides is for the Zexal titled anime, dated from 2010. Already, there is a Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal article and the contents of "Sky Island" seem to have come from the "Zexal" one. I have searched in English and Japanese (as I can use it to an intermediate level) and have found nothing other than the "Sky Island" article itself that indicates it titled as "Sky Island" or even as another series. I left a note on its talk page but wanted some input on the matter from some other people (the article was just created and not a lot of people have seen it). I am trying to AGF but it seems like nonsense. Thanks. LlamaDude78 (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello LlamaDude78! You certainly called it: this article violates a wide range of Wikipedia's policies, including, but not limited to, WP:Notability, WP:No original research, and WP:Verifiability. There is simply no evidence to be found that a series of this name even exists. It may very well exist, but one of the golden rules here at Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability, not truth. This is the perfect time for you to learn about the Articles for deletion process. Articles for deletion is the place where users can go to argue that an article does not belong on Wikipedia. An overview of the process can be found at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. You probably do not have to read all of that page because you already know why the article needs to be deleted. A concise step-by-step guide for how to actually nominate an article for deletion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion. This can be a difficult process for a newcomer to understand, which is why you are welcome to post here exactly what you want to say in the nomination so that I and other editors can help you word it before you post at Article for deletion. To get a hold of me the quickest, you can leave a note on my talk page. As soon as you do this I will receive an email saying I have messages on my talk page, which I will see immediately (unless I get a call from the President between now and then, in which case I may be delayed a few minutes). hajatvrc @ 15:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, never mind. The article has already been deleted by an admin as a "blatant hoax". Have a good day! hajatvrc @ 15:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I created a page and submitted it, followed instructions on revising it, submitted it a couple of times more. Finally, the history said it was being cleaned (no rejection, just that)... and then nothing more happened. The last person to work on it, I now see, is suddenly "retired."
I don't know if I need to do more myself, just wait, or what.
Scootsalong, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. We're talking here about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aaron Barlow? The current status of this article is that it's been reviewed and declined for the time being and needs more work on it before it will be accepted. There have been three reviews of this article and all appear to have declined the submission be on the same basis that it needs more reliable sources and references quoting. You do have a number of references there but a lot of them don't appear to be necessaily from reliable sources or are only referencing straightforward articles of fact, for example, that he has written several books. I think what the reviewers are pushing for is more "academic" reviews of his work to support the claim to notabiity. Good references are like the one you have for the Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 2008, Vol. 20 Issue 4, p256-258 as long as this talks about Barlow and his work in detail and is not just a passing mention. NtheP (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
After the third one, it was reviewed again, by Bmusician, and nothing seems to have come of that other than 'cleaning the submission.' I made changes of the sort you are referring to after Oobunnies rejected it. That's why I am a little confused.
Scootsalong (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Scootsalong! Welcome to the Teahouse. Bmusician didn't review the article, he just cleaned up the declined tag a bit. You can see these things for yourself by clicking "History" and then the date of the version you want to see. So at this point your article actually is in limbo, waiting for you to add more sources and resubmit it. One thing that will help is if you add the ISBN numbers to any of the books he wrote that were actually paper published. There is a bit of a bias on Wikipedia towards paper publications IMHO. Good luck. I looked into this because Bmusician was my mentor and he has recently retired. Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! I think you were looking for the Reference Desk; this forum is for questions about how to edit wikipedia. That said, I had a quick look at the documentation and my guess would be this is another in a long tradition of naming software after your significant other (e.g., Anjuta and debian). Hope that helps! GaramondLethe07:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
What happens when I submit a page for review?
Hi All, I had submitted a page for review a couple of days back. Now I see below the page its written 'There are currently 461 submissions waiting for review at this page.'. Does that mean my page is 461st in the list? Is the number based on the order of submission?Kirukp (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kirukp! Welcome to the Teahouse and thank you for submitting an article for review and inclusion in Wikipedia! The 461 is just how many there are awaiting review in general - it does not mean yours is at the bottom. Sometimes it takes days and weeks to review, it just depends on how many volunteers there are reviewing articles. (Often the AfC backlog is over 700, so it could be worse!). Please be patient - we'll get to it soon =) SarahStierch (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Annonymous, I've never heard of QD tagging so I'll be interested to read the replies. Maybe you could point out where your 'recent one' is? Sionk (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi TheAnnoymousUser and welcome to the English Wikipedia! Things are a little different than simple, and one of the differences is in terminology. The rules for "quick deletion" are found at criteria for speedy deletion, (they're known as CSDs here). Your recent one was fine, it was deleted, though there are better templates to use. Instead of using "g1", which doesn't make sense unless you know the criteria, I would have used {{db-nonsense}}, which does include non-english coherent text. WormTT(talk) 12:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'll be the first to admit that I sometimes use the shortened code form (usually because I can't remember what the long form is, or because I'm forced to by the db-multiple template), but it really is better to use the long form when you can. The more information we can give to the author the better, and sometimes the templates themselves are more specific (such as using db-corp instead of db-a7 for non-notable companies). Remember, it's not a race. :) Writ Keeper⚇♔14:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
If I may butt in to correct Worm, {{db-nonsense}} does not include coherent non-English text - see the full specification at WP:CSD#G1. It is intended only for things like "6*1@8#xQ4###!" or "Yaaayyyyy LOL!!!!", and should be used with great care because a new contributor told his work is nonsense may well feel insulted. In fact, not being in English is not itself a reason for speedy deletion - sometimes (though not often) a non-English page can usefully be translated, and there is a place at Wikipedia:pages needing translation where they can be listed to see whether anyone can do that. Guidance on what to do when faced with a non-English page can be found at WP:New page patrol#Dealing with foreign language new pages. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Referenceing a magazine article
I have noticed an error in an article and I would like to fix it. Obviously, I need to back up my change with proof. The only proof I have is a photo our company shot as well as one image in a 1986 magazine. I have emailed the magazine as well as the parent publishing company to see if they have this online that I can link to, but have received no response. How do I go about using this as a reference without violating copyright laws? Can I post it to our website and link to that?
Hi AVS and welcome to the Teahouse. References in articles don't have to be online to be used on wikipedia so you can reference the magazine by it's name, issue, page etc and use the link to the company website as a backup. There is a specific template {{Cite journal}} you can use for this. NtheP (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! There is no requirement that a source be online in order to be used to reference an edit. You can use the {{cite journal}} template when using a print magazine or scholarly journal. You can read more about it here, or if you have any questions about how to use it, feel free to return to the Teahouse and someone will be able to help! --McDoobAU9321:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Word 'Saan'
Hi,
Can I use the word 'Saan' (English) for a woman's name in my poetry.
Hello. I do a lot of work where I take a stub, work on it in my sandbox, and usually turn it into a start or C article. By the time I've done that, there's sometimes nothing left of the original wording. (I leave infoboxes, external links, etc if they are there.) Is it more correct to take the original, paste it in my sandbox with attribution, and work on it, or better to just start fresh -- or does it matter? Sometimes I can work section by section, but other projects are too big for me to handle that way. (BTW, about noon NY time you can see one of my articles at DYK?: John R. Tunis). :) Thanks for the help. Tlqk56 (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
First, thanks for the replies. To clarify, my DYK has been approved and is on the front page now. As for working on the page itself, that's OK if I'm just adding some info here or there or only working on one section. But some articles deserve a lot more work, for example I ended up expanding John R. Tunis 11 times it's original size. I'm not sure I could do that in the article space, it took me a month, and I do lots of moving and tweaking and editing to try and get it right. If I did that in the mainspace the article would be a mess all that time, which doesn't seem desirable. But this is still new to me.
Ryan, the link you gave me was helpful. I will have to read and consider it some more.I don't remember seeing the under construction template before. May I ask, what did you end up doing? (The articles I work on rarely have anyone else editing them, if they do I leave them there.) Thanks again. Anyone else want to give an opinion? Tlqk56 (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
It's a tough issue; there's negatives on both sides. On the draft side, if you start with a copy and then rework it in your namespace and the article you copied it from is not edited at all when you are ready to transfer, it is possible to do a history merge. But if there have been any subsequent edits, then a history merge is not possible because it would shuffle together the edits by time and date, so you will have to instead overwrite the existing content with your content in a single edit and lose all the page history associated with your new content. There's no copyright issue there because all of the content is yours. However, if the draft has had any non-trival edits by people other than you, it creates a copyright violation to transfer the content to the existing article without a history merge. There are messy fixes for this I won't get into but it good to be aware of the issue so that you don't invite people to make changes to such a draft. On the other hand, it's difficult to use an under construction tag on a live article for a month, and you won't feel nearly as free to make messy changes, leave notes to yourself, other things that don't belong in the mainspace, and leave them in place until you can fix it at your leisure; much more confining. I don't know that there's any middle ground between the two.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
How do I remove a name from a list of birthdays that is incorrect?
Hi Chloe and welcome to the Teahouse! The simple answer to your question is that all you need to do is go to the article, click edit, and scroll all the way to the bottom. You should see two pieces of code that look like this: Category: 1941 births and {{Persondata |NAME ...etc. All you have to do is change the "1941" you see in both places to the correct year. However, I want to caution you just a little bit. We have a conflict of interest policy, so any edits you make to the article about your father need to be neutral and sourced. I know I linked you to a bunch of really wordy policies and guidelines; if you have trouble with them (most of us have!) please do ask here and we can give you a better explanation. I hope this helps! Best, Keilana|Parlez ici14:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Article deletion by another user without discussion
Hi. I just had my first article published tonight and soon afterwards another user promptly deleted it. The article was for a recurring guest character on a television show (and that particular character has had an enormous impact in the show's story lines for the last 3 years). The person who deleted it did so by commenting only that the character did not deserve an article since it was not a main (i.e. regular) character on the show.
While it is true that the character, Helena G. Wells, is not a main character - she is the more significant to the show than one of the main characters who is listed, and has shaped the overall show through her character's main storyline since Season 2. As such I think it is relevant to include an article on her - especially since much of the information that exists for her is so pertinent to any understanding of the show itself.
My question are - when something like this occurs, what is the best method for resolution? Is it normal to allow deletion of an entire article without discussion first? Is it normal to not allow articles for television characters based on whether or not they are main characters? Also if a person can do a redirect so that an article is completely bypassed then is that the same thing as a deletion? Does it follow the same rules? If the redirect is just randomly done is it okay to take that redirect off? Electprogeny (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Electprogeny. Starting with your last question first, this is not at all the same as deletion in a true sense, though it certainly meets a more vernacular interpretation of the word. But using "deletion" in relation to what occurred here (a redirection that you reverted) would be confusing for many people: Deletion on Wikipedia usually means actual deletion of the page with its history so that it becomes a red link, and would have to be recreated or undeleted by an administrator in order to be seen by the public. Redirection does no such thing, can be reverted and the entire page can be accessed from the page history. I note that in one of your edit summaries you mentioned that this does not meet any speedy deletion criterion. That is true, but really irrelevant, as that only refers to actual deletion.
Turning from terminology to substance, here a user boldly redirected the page, and you boldly undid that action, and the user then did not repeat the action but tagged the article with issues, and you both started discussing it. That is the way things are supposed to work; it is the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle in action.
Anyway, the salient issue as I see it and as the other user has also referred to, is whether there exist sufficient, independent, reliablesecondary sources which cover the topic in some depth. Whether you feel this character is important to the series or not is heartfelt but does not appeal to an objective standard that speaks to its encyclopedic nature or meeting our inclusion criteria. I think you can tighten up and condense the material you've written, and include it in the sub-article List of Warehouse 13 characters. On the other hand, if the sources I am looking for (not the primary sources you've already included) exist and can be added in place of those, then maybe a stand-alone article is warranted but the current text does not demonstrate this. Please see also Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction and Wikipedia:Summary style. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Fughettaboutit! Thanks so much for that answer. So I've added 12 secondary citations this morning, and can add quite a lot more if I'm actually going to be required to create a repository of references. :p Something that is bothering me about what is happening is that the person who has zeroed in on this article is not doing so because of any of the actual reasons like sources, writing style, or any of that - s/he is doing it PURELY because of a dislike for this particular character to have an independent article at all. I pointed out that all the objections s/he raised were, in fact, TRUE of every single other Warehouse 13 article - and NONE of the main character articles cite ANY external references AT ALL. In fact the main Wiki article for Warehouse 13 only cites a single external reference - and mine, at the time of these shenanigans, cited TWO! That said, I definitely know that this doesn't prove the Helena article should be retained, it only proves two things - that NONE of the Warehouse 13 articles should be retained if those issues are not remedied respectively per article, and also that the person who has zeroed in to target this is actually doing this for retaliation because I added the character to the List of Cast and Characters in the main Warehouse 13 article as well as the supporting List of Warehouse 13 Characters article. I know that improving the article I have authored is my goal - and I am diligently taking all the negative criticism and attempting to make positive improvements with them. But aside from that, irrespective of the accuracy of the objections raised - when someone does literally come after your article purely out of spite for an edit (an action the person admitted to on the talk page for my article) how is that not harassment? If I focus on improving the article is anything ever done about the person doing the harassing? Also, some quick questions - when I see an article that has the list of characters, for Warehouse 13 for instance, how would I reference one of the entries in the list using the brackets type link so I don't have to actually make a reference citation? How do I know whether or not a raised objection, let's say lack of secondary sources, is satisfied well-enough to remove the objection after I add secondary sources to back up the primary ones? If an article contains unique content and is well-referenced with the notability standards in mind, what causes that article from ending up redirected, merged, or deleted?Electprogeny (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
"the person who has zeroed in on this article is not doing so because of any of the actual reasons like sources, writing style, or any of that - s/he is doing it PURELY because of a dislike for this particular character to have an independent article at all." As I have already explained to you, some 2.5 hours before you posted here,[1] what attracted me to the article was when you added H.G. Wells to Warehouse 13 as a major character, when she is not, and never has been.[2] Please, please, please stop making baseless allegations. Assume good faith and don't attack other editors just because they've reverted your edits. Personal attacks are not permitted. You have been on the offensive since you started. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This is the one and only response I will give to you here - and the VERY LAST response to quibble over what you did or did not say that clearly show why I have no choice but to arrive at that conclusion. I respond to you only so there is absolute record that I am asking you to leave me alone - and the reason for it. I came here to write an article and grow it with the help of the community. I did not come here to be harassed or stalked. The drama with you has been constant since the article went live last night and all of the good faith and good will I had was spent as an effort in futility trying to get you to work with me toward article improvement. Instead you have focused on following me around even to a newbie area to engage me on an item where YOUR NAME WAS NEVER MENTIONED. I am here because as a newbie editor I am asking for clarification on the rules, am asking for advice on how to handle situations, and am here at the invitation of a very generous helper person who invited me here after you redirected my article without discussion where you dismissed my attempt to talk it over with you. Since that time you have done nothing but attack the article for its existence using spurious arguments and circular reasoning to justify your objection rather than offering even the slightest bit of advice or personal effort toward improvement. I have REPEATEDLY asked you to STOP with the bickering and you CONTINUE to keep it going. Please stop addressing me for non-article-specific related matters. I will not respond to anything you say unless it is about the article improvement itself until such time as your interactions with me are less caustic. You never reverted my article. You simply redirected it - which, at the time, I thought was a deletion because I did not know how to tell the difference. When I asked for assistance from a helper I was advised to try to engage you in conversation. That fell flat on its face with your abject dismissal of my efforts. From your original action to redirect based on the statement of "not a main character" to your repeated comments that non-principle character do not deserve an article to your entire INITIATING post on the Warehouse 13 talk page about this where you point blank go into the reasons for why "we" just can't allow anyone to come in and write an article about non-principle characters - your MOTIVE for coming after the Helena G. Wells article has been clear. I do NOT dispute ANY of the wiki-objections raised - I am, in fact, addressing them one by one as quickly as I can. But there is NO QUESTION as to motive at this point. It was never about article improvement and was always about trying to get the article removed. When all of those shenanigans started I did as advised and created a discussion area on the article itself to invite you and others to comment - which you then promptly ignored to throw a new discussion full of unsubstantiated allegation onto a totally DIFFERENT article and then you proceeded to continue having the "discussion" on both pages - and now you're here taking issue with a newbie request for explanations and advice where your name was never mentioned! For the third or fourth time now - I need you to stop. I need you to leave me alone, please. I do not like how weird this has become or how stalker-harasser it feels at this point. If you don't have something constructive to offer about the article improvement, I will not be responding to any further communication from you. And THIS area of wikipedia is not appropriate for a bickering fest. My apologies to all who were subjected to this. Electprogeny (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I cannot see my article on wikipedia
Hello, I wrote an article on Frédéric Malle yesterday. I cannot see it yet. Is it because it's going to be reviewed before getting published? How long will it take?
Hello and welcome to the teahouse Bereniceder. The only thing you have written is on your userpage which you find by clicking your username at the top of the page. To create an article you will need to use the article creation wizard or write the article in your sandbox, which is also linked at the top of the page, then copy/paste it into a newly created page for the article. With the article creation wizard your work will be reviewed by more experienced editors and advice given before it is moved to the main encyclopedia.--Charles (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Using capitals in the names of educational degrees?
Hi kind tea house host, I'm editing University of Colorado School of Medicine. Can I just check about capitals in the names of degree programs. For example, in "the university offers a child health associate or child health physician assistant (CHAPA) degree" are there capitals? Thanking you very much, Myrtle.
Myrtlegroggins (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I'm extremely confused at the process for uploading an image to an article. I'm working on my first article, and I have no idea how to successfully upload an image to my article. The image is a picture of a movie poster I took from the production company I work for. I am helping them make a Wikipedia page for their new film but I cannot figure out how to get an image working. I've checked out some of the endless articles on Wikipedia about image uploading but they are extremely confusing. Can you please help? Robertlp202 (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Robertlp202, welcome to the Teahouse. I can sympathize with your problem, as I'm pretty new here myself and really had problem with this at first. Then I came here and asked the same question, and DocTree gave me these great diredtions, which I'm taking the liberty of passing on to you. But first I have to say you will need to deal with the issue of copyright before you can post anything, and there may be a conflict of interest if you are writing about your compnay. But someone here who knows more than I can help with those issues. Here's how to post an image:
Adding photos is pretty easy.
Search http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page to see if someone already uploaded a suitable image or images. (If you would like a thumb you would type [[File:Hornbook Mexican.png|thumb|Caption]] In addition, you can link to an image by adding a colon right before the word file like this. [[:File:Hornbook Mexican.png]] which produces File:Hornbook Mexican.png.)
Find the picture you want/need on the web
Right-click and choose 'Save as...' and give it a logical name, then save to your Pictures folder
Go to the Wikipedia article you're working on and look in the 'Toolbox' on the left, then click on 'Upload file' Right in the middle, click on "Click here to Start the Upload Form"
Fill in Steps 1 and 2 (The first blank under Step 2 will become the name of your picture) In Step 3, click on the button that applies.
When you've written enough and filled in all the blanks, the "Upload file" button will appear clearly (rather than fuzzy and faded).
Click it. The file will upload and WP will give you the file name to use.
Copy it down. (If you are putting it in an Infobox, don't use the File:Xxxname, just the name. Otherwise, put in something that looks like this:[[File:Example.png|thumb|alt=Example alt text|Example caption]] You should be able to see it when you Preview.
Thank you Tlqk56! I really appreciate it. I've checked out the uploading method you mentioned and that's pretty much what I did in order to get an image on the page. But I'm afraid I will have the picture taken down, since the image i took a picture of is not entirely my own work. The image is the poster of a new movie and the Director is letting me make a Wikipedia page for him. I'm not sure how to work this one out with Commons. It always warns me that if I dont provide any proof of license, that the image will be taken down...
Another thing Tlqk56, I did not quite understand what you mean adding a colon right before the word file... is this some way of putting your image from your pictures file to wikipedia without uploading it to Commons??
Thanks Again! Robertlp202 (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
hi Robert, the colon before File enables you to link to an image page rather than display the image. It's part of the Wikimedia software syntax. NtheP (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey there! Not entirely inexperienced, but this appears to be a pretty friendly place to ask what might otherwise be considered an obvious question. I was looking at WP:N for the guidelines on products & services, yet that only really appears to cover where information on notable products should be included (ie, on the parent company's article). There doesn't really appear to be a measure of what exactly constitutes a notable product. Just WP:GNG? Or is notability entirely contingent on WP:INHERITED from the notability (or lack-thereof) of the parent/production company?
The product in question is StackSoap, and they've received press coverage from Wired/The Atlantic/Gizmodo, so there's certainly some reliable sources here. IShadowed(talk)06:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi IShadowed, welcome to the Teahouse. Good question! IMHO, I think it has to do with GNG if one is interested in creating an article entirely about a product. If an object hasn't garnered GNG then it can be included in the parent company article. I hope this helps guide you a bit :) SarahStierch (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey IShadowed! I personally think that a product needs to meet the GNG to be notable enough for its own article (e.g. that's how I would comment on an AfD). If it's got some inherited notability, then it should be in the parent article. I hope that helps! (Sorry WP:PRODUCT is ambiguous. It reads a bit confusing to me, and I've been here 5 years!) Best, Keilana|Parlez ici14:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, and sorry for pointing you somewhere you're already familiar with. According to my observations, ambiguous guidelines suggest a lack of consensus in drawing them up. I agree with Keilana that GNG is the way to go. -- Trevj (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Why was my article declined?
Hello I still cannot figure out why my article was declined. I posted to the editor and he never responded and it has been over a month. I would love to know what I can do in terms of edits in order to move forward with this. thank you Cef2129 (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Cef2129 and welcome to the Teahouse! If your article was declined at Articles for Creation, I recommend you make the changes the reviewer suggested and then resubmit it. If you have any questions about what you should do to improve the article, please ask here. Happy editing! Best, Keilana|Parlez ici23:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Cef2129, and welcome to the Teahouse. I took a look at your draft article on Leandra Medine, and I think that it may be acceptable with some additional work (though I know almost nothing personally about the world of fashion). I think that the strongest reference is the New York Times profile, which is listed first. The Avenue interview, reference #4, also appear strong as it calls her work the "fashion world's most influential blog" and seems to have lots of biographical information. You should quote such a clear claim of notability, assuming that the publication is considered reliable in the fashion industry. Include biographical details in addition to her fashion work - education, background, parents and so on. Structure the article into sections, and use other biographies as a model for how to do that. Be sure that your references are formatted properly - many are red links because you've added quotation marks around them. Reference #2 seems to be a dead link - correct it or remove it. Avoid references that are little more than passing mentions or routine product announcements. Also Wikify the article - adding links to the manufacturers and designers mentioned - but avoid any tendency toward name-dropping, or over-emphasizing lesser connections with more famous people and institutions. Concentrate on the most solid and notable connections. When you have made your improvements, resubmit the article. These are my personal opinions, and please take them as suggestions from a friendly editor who is not a fashion expert. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
delete copyright violations outright or is it possible to rewrite and put citation in?
Hi, I continue to find multiple copyright violations in Jimi Hendrix's wiki. I've deleted 7, I think it, in the last day or so. I've found several more. Is it possible to rewrite the text and put in a citation to save the information as it seems to say here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cclean - or should I continue to delete outright? I'm asking because there're going to be lots of gaps in this article if I keep finding more and delete outright. I would appreciate any guidance on this. Thanks :) Charlie Inks (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Welcome, Charlie; nice to know someone is taking care of such things. I seldom work a performer biography, but they indeed tend to be infested with copyviols. My custom is to cite and summarize the pasted material in a sentence, as I did a few months ago with The Walt Disney Family Museum. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Charlie is back! I can see by your contributions that you have certainly been busy today, haha.
When you spot a copyright violation, the first thing to do is REMOVE it. Sometimes what I do is copy the section and the source into an external text editor and THEN decide if it can be reworked. Sometimes the content that was the subject of copyvio is just not relevant enough to the article to be put back in. But if it is, there are a few more questions to answer. First of all, if the content is only mentioned by a single source (which can be determined by a Google search), then there should probably only be a tiny mention of it in the article (unless it is something highly significant like a lengthy NY Times article). If you find multiple sources that mention the idea, then this makes it a little easier to solve the copyvio. In such a case, it is possible to take small bits of information from MULTIPLE sources and synthesize them into paragraph form. This keeps the content from too closely reflecting any one source. A big note on solving copyvios is that paraphrasing can still be considered plagiarism. See that link on how to solve this problem. Good job! hajatvrc @ 19:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Jim! It's good to get some additional thoughts on this, and I really appreciate you giving me that link. I'm wrapping up some other work just now, but I will definitely be checking this out before I proceed with the next set of copyviols. Look - I kinda think it's important b/c copyviol is stealing, as far as I'm concerned - just my humble opinion :) Anyways, thank you for the guidance! :) Charlie Inks (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey Hajatvrc! :D It's great to be in touch with you again! Yes, I'm back! (I'm adjusting my purple cape now :D Alright enough silliness. This is wikipedia! Would you be terribly offended if I honour you by calling you One of the Last Deep Purple Thinkers? :D You are Totally Up There for me, my friend. I mean this entirely and with great humility, as a compliment (I haven't had time/energy to see what/if happened to the end of our last exchange yet - please excuse me for that, but yes, it does continue to occupy my thoughts.... It's lovely when that happens!). This is very helpful advice you're giving me here, and I particularly appreciate the detail. The copyviols I'm finding yes, typically, can be sourced to other places - I'm dipping into my 3rd Hendrix bio as I'm writing this! (Jimi's wiki is colonizing my brain - heeeeeelp!) With great humility, I have to tell you, I'm always very conscious - because I'm not a musicologist - that other editors (who probably are) have spent hours, days, weeks and MONTHS on Jimi's article. The copyviols are especially heartbreaking to me b/c of this. Could so many people? or one or two editors? not know copyright law? I don't know what to make of it, but once again, dear Mr. Hajatvrc, I'm grateful to you for taking the time to help me understand how best to consider or deal with something on here. Will definitely be keeping your advice on this in mind, along w/ Jim's, when I get to this later in the week. A big virtual hug to you (is that allowed?) for Making Me Think last time I was here, yeah?! :D Have a fabulous afternoon, Charlie Inks (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi again!
Hi, I was just wondering how on earth twinkle works WITHOUT flash. If not too much trouble, please explain on my talk page. I know how to use it, but not how it works.TheAnnoymousUser (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you're talking about the title of an article on Wikipedia, there is - in some cases. If someone has uploaded it, you'll see a little speaker next to a word - click it and you'll hear what it sounds like when said by an actual person. However, a better option is usually installing some sort of Text-to-Speech program on your computer - on my Mac, it's already installed by default, but you may need to do a bit of googling for how to do it on a PC. Let me know if you need more clarification, or if I just misinterpreted your question! Theopolisme TALK15:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Just a further note: sometimes the speaker icon is not clickable. This means that it just denotes the English IPA pronunciation of the word, which follows it. Learning to read IPA is a good skill, not just on Wikipedia, but in life! hajatvrc @ 16:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Is a wait-time of one week for resubmitted article realistic?
Hi there Seniorexpat, welcome to the Teahouse! Between the work of the previous reviewer and yourself, it looks like a good start to me. I've accepted your article and moved it to the main space of Wikipedia. Congratulations! Do you have an idea for your next article? heather walls (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Seniorexpat! I have made a few minor grammatical and formatting tweaks to the article and added a note (which will not show up on the actual article) of a part that still needs a citation. You can view exactly what I did here. hajatvrc @ 08:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you all for your acceptance and prompt assistance! I have added the desired verification of a "New Update" with a new link to a free copy.
Thank you for the invitation.
MHS
Is this where I would put my questions? I have been practicing on the entry http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murray_High_School_(Kentucky)&pe=1& which was marked as needing some references. I have done that and a bit more. It is still not great, but how do I get those markings removed?
I am also working on an article on someone that should have one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Constantine_W._Curris. It has been declined twice as I am learning slowly. How does a reviewer get chosen for an article? Do reviewers choose what they will work on? Are they assigned? In a backlog are the reviews done in the order the articles were received? Does further editing delay the review? user:Pyramid43
Hi Pyramid43! I just love it when a new user comes in with a whole slew of questions that show they are truly interested in Wikipedia!
Murray High School (Kentucky) seems to be pretty good for a new article. I am not yet willing to remove the citations template because you still have two sections, Notable Alumni and Historical Timeline, which do not contain any references. This is not something to be upset about. Countless articles, even older ones, have that banner at the top. Your article will not be deleted, as it does contain many citations and the subject is certainly notable. The citations banner is just a way of letting other editors know that they can help the article by adding a few more references.
Articles for creation can be an extremely stressful place for a new editor because there is so much to read an understand about it. ANY registered user can review an AfC. There is no assignment process, just volunteers. Of course, if an editor approves an article that other editors later think is not ready to be an article, the other editors will probably move the article back to AfC. When a large backlog exists, potential articles do not have to be reviewed in order. An editor may choose an article that is in their own comfort zone, or go right to articles that they think are either the most promising or need the most work. Further editing after submitting an article is encouraged and does not delay anything.
With regards to Constantine W. Curris, you will notice that the last editor who declined it said that the article does not establish notability. This does not mean that the subject himself is not notable, it just means you should probably look for mentions of the subject in widely viewed media publications, etc. and use those as citations. Notability is the number one reason why new articles are declined. As of right now, I do agree that none of your references are from highly-visible media. Just take a look at Wikipedia:Notability, and you will see what I mean. hajatvrc @ 07:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I have checked a couple of these things and WRT Murray HS I think I should just find a similar one so that I can see what kind of references are suited for those things. On the Curris thing I am more confused. It is now up for review again and given what you said: Should I "take it down" until the issues are resolved? How do I do that or would you do it for me? Is there a limit to how many times you can submit something? (Even if there is not a limit, I don't want it declined a third time.) I have looked at the Wikipedia:Notability and based on criterion 6 it seems the notability requirement is met. Could we discuss this via email?
Thank you again for your time.Pyramid43 (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I have looked at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). And yes, criterion 6 specifically mentions the subject's title. Again, the subject himself is notable. The reason the article did not pass last time is because it did not meet Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, which applies to ALL articles. But, I do see that there is an article by the NY Times that gives a bio of the subject. This is enough to meet the rule. I am officially accepting the article, which will be in the article namespace in a few minutes! If you have any further questions, you may email me. hajatvrc @ 17:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
