Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 883

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 880Archive 881Archive 882Archive 883Archive 884Archive 885→Archive 890

edit 'the list of highest grossing indian movies'

a movie hebbuli has grossed 56 crore and needs to be in the 3rd position in kannada section source=ttps://bestoftheyear.in/movie/hebbuli/

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anchitya (talk • contribs) 16:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Anchitya, as I have explained to you twice before, you need an independent, reliable source for the information. If you want the information added, you need to find the source. If you look at the history of List of highest-grossing Indian films, you will see that I found the source you mention above, and added Hebbuli to the article, and that Cyphoidbomb reverted my edit, as they don't believe bestofyear.in is a reliable source. I am quite prepared to bow to Cyphoidbomb's knowledge, and have no interest in pursuing this. If you believe that bestofyear.in is reliable, you need to argue the case on either WP:RSN or Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films, and adduce evidence that Cyphoidbomb and any other editor will accept. Alternatively you need to find a major source, unconnected with the studio or producers, and with a reputation for fact checking, that gives a number.
I also observed that you have ignored all three of the pieces of advice I gave you about administrative matters: you did not sign your post above, you did not wikilink the article you were referring to (and did not even quote its title accurately), and you unnecessarily and unhelpfully mangled the URL above. This is the last time I shall bother replying to you, unless you show some evidence of actually reading my advice. --ColinFine (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
ColinFine, you're doing a good job. Indian films are perpetually the target of bullshit figures and problematic sources. The entire industry is based on estimations, but every random editor who comes by has a strong conviction about what the absolute value of budget or gross should be, when multiple sources across the entertainment landscape will have different ideas. A significant percentage of new editors will push editors unfamiliar in this area into swallowing published figures, when most non-Indians have no idea what is or isn't a reliable source. Wikipedia is very often used as an extension of the studios' marketing departments. If someone can establish a higher value, and maybe a lower budget, they will, to make the profits look better. TL;DR: Don't trust any absolute value of Indian film financial data, be it budget or gross. WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources or WT:ICTFFAQ may be helpful here. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Creating an article

Hey, I have been a wikipedia member for almost exactly 4 days,its technically the fourth day but will be exactly in about 2 hours. and have made 12 edits. Does anyone know when I will be able to make my own article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleylouisewilliams3408 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ashleylouisewilliams3408: You can create a draft at any point. I'll leave more specific instructions on your user talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Seven of your edits have been of photos you took and posted to Wikipedia Commons. Some of the photos are generic in nature (pond, lake, golf course, hunting scene), so don't really add to the articles. Suggest you do a bit of text editing and creation of references in existing articles before you essay article creation. David notMD (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

interaction with editors

Hello recently I was involved in a debate if I can put it like this about editing the content of a wiki page.

I would like to know more how to use the talk page and also how to interact properly in the editors discussion page, like what symbols must I use at the end of my postings and how.

Sorry in advance if these questions seem to you elementary level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 16:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tidewings: You sign your posts by putting four tildes (for example ~~~~) at the end of your post. New posts go below what they're responding to. You can edit an existing section by looking for a button to the right of the section title. You use colons ( : ) to indent. You can find this and more in this guide I wrote on a variety of issues new users face. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: like this Ian? Also, how should I interact for editing a post. If another editor doesn't accept my view? Or if I do not his/hers? They told me about the talk page. But then there how is a consensus accomplished? I can provide my citation and he/she the other position. how a consensus is accomplished?Tidewings (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Tidewings. If you find it difficult to reach consensus with other editors, dispute resolution tells you the various things you can try. --ColinFine (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I want to enter now in a talk page to discuss with another editor to edit a page. How do I do it?Tidewings (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello User:Tidewings! You go to the article and at the top there will be a tab that says "Talk". You click on that and it takes you to the talk page. Most wikipedia pages have one, even this one! Ironic that a talk page has a talk page. Hope that helped, Cheers! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding WP:SUSPECT

Does WP:SUSPECT recommend against posting the names/identifying infortmation of people who have been arrested in an ongoing investigation of a crime? The arrested individuals are not public figures. The particular article in question is Murders of Louisa Vesterager Jespersen and Maren Ueland. Thank you. Ruyter (talk • edits) 09:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The short answer is that the policy recommends that editors seriously consider not including the names. In reality it can often be argued either way. What policy does make clear is that no guilt should be implied before a conviction. This is usually an incredibly difficult thing to achieve. There's rarely sufficient justification to include the names of individuals who have only been arrested, or suspected, who have not been charged or sent for trial. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

A query about references for a new article.

Hi, I need some help please. I am trying to submit an article about and Urdu author "Yaqub Nizami". He has few Urdu books and is well known in the Urdu circle but I am struggling to find any online references. His books are listed on Amazon but the publisher hasn't made any available to buy on Amazon. could you please provide some guidance how can I get it accepted. I tried once, couple of years ago, but it was declined because of lack of references. Regards Abdul Rashid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulrashid285 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Bellezzasolo. As the author writes primarily in Urdu, it is quite likely that English references are scarce, if there are any at all. The good news is that we allow non-english sources, generally with a particular quote and a translation, to aid verification. It may help to search for Urdu, which won't show up ordinarily due to the different alphabet. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Just to add, you can get the text of Draft:Yaqub Nizami back by going to requests for undeletion. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Text box with my username appearing in an article

Howdy. I'm hoping someone can help explain the significance of a box that appeared on an article I recently edited. I made a minor edit to the article a few hours ago, and when I returned, there was an unfamiliar message at the top of the page. I do recall adding it to my watch list, but I'm worried I might have hit another button, causing the text to appear. Can you please explain it's meaning, if it is publicly posted, and if it needs to be removed?

This box appeared above the article's first paragraph:

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MinorEnglishMajor (talk | contribs) at 22:49, 28 December 2018 (Removed terminal punctuation from incomplete sentence). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version. (diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Thanks in advance, MinorEnglishMajor (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@MinorEnglishMajor: no, you did nothing wrong - it is not text that appears on the article itself, only if you click a permanent link to that particular version. Right now it's the current version, but if and when somebody makes another edit to the page, the colour of the box at the top will change to pink and the text "current revision" will change to "old revision", as a warning to anyone who starts editing that old revision. (Here is what the permanent link to the revision previous to yours looks like.) Hope that makes sense! More info on permanent links here. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to provide those links & your explanation. I've jumbled a section before by hitting or forgetting a key & wanted to be sure I hadn't done it again. Happy Holidays MinorEnglishMajor (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Help

this can't edit other userpages wanna call for speedy deletion for promo user spaces 182.58.198.26 (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Tagged as WP:CSD#U5 RhinosF1 (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 Done RhinosF1 (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Why does someone keep telling me I need to have a source?

My edits don’t need sources, I’m just improving the writing style in the articles. But someone keeps undoing them and saying I need reliable sources. Can this editor be blocked please? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady Kweefsalot (talk • contribs) 13:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lady Kweefsalot: Wrong, all new information needs sources. Also, stating something so redundantly obvious that Helen Keller could see it from the International Space Station while facing the wrong way doesn't exactly come across as helpful. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Every one of their edits is at such a level of redundancy ("Then, he later went on to" is triply redundant!) that I'm half-convinced they're trolling. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
@Galobtter: Yeah, I was waiting for any response short of a 180 but I see you've already blocked them. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually, blocked for offensive name, but yes, all the edits were in my opinion deliberately annoying (and reverted, by different editors). David notMD (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Offensive user name that references female sexual anatomy + overt trolling = Architect 134. I dislike cleaning up after Architect 134 because it's always a slog to go through the checkuser data and block all the sock puppets, but you might as well ping me when these show up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I am making a wikipedia page for my friend and it keeps getting declined for no reason

hi I am making a wikipedia page for my friend jordan and it keeps getting declined can anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ KDYN (talk • contribs) 10:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DJ KDYN. The messages at the top of User:DJ KDYN/sandbox explain the reasons for your draft being declined. Topics need to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, published sources to be considered eligible for Wikipedia articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
The draft in the editor's sandbox has been deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation. DJ KDYN, except for brief, referenced quotations, you must write in your own words. Please read and study Your first article and Conflict of interest. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit query.

I have added an edit on the Rajneesh page, from a reliable source, including information from an interview with the person who purchased the Ranch in 1981, and a member of Sheelas group who was present at all of her meetings. Her husband, in fact.

Anyhow, someone objected to it and pulled it down, because they said that I did not provide copyright from the website that hosted the interview.

I have cited the page where the interview is published , however, the creators of the website, do not have a copyright policy, and allow their articles to be reproduced by anyone.

However, I can get permission to use part of the text if neccesary from the editors of the site.

So , what I want to ask is, should I rewrite the gist of some of the interview in my own words , withou t using the text original interview, or should I leave it as it is , when the issue with copyright is sorted out?

I don`t see why the original text should not be used, as there is a lot of similar material, already on the Rajneesh page, that is qouted directly from other sources. That they are all reliable is highly debatable.

There are several sources, who were present at the same meetings with Sheela who also verify in FBI transcripts and other places that Sheelas husband was present and had knowledge of events.

And should I name the author of the article , in my edit?

Here is the content of my edit:

"Swami Jayananda, (John Shelfer) , Sheela’s husband and member of Sheela’s intimate group at Rajneeshpuram, was asked in a interview in 2011 , if he had any insight into why Sheela had Osho’s room bugged around 1983/85.

He replied that “She was resentfull of Osho choosing to communicate with other members of the community.She wanted to control all aspects of his life and the commune.”

When asked if Sheela was guilty of the crimes as ordinarily understood, Jayananda answered, “Yes, her rational was it was for the better good of the commune. In reality it was to justify her actions. It was to cement her control - remove any impediment to her total domination of the community. For example the poisoning of the Dalles- was in order to elect members of the community to the governing board of the county. This would have removed the hold on the community’s ability to issue building permits... the attempted murder of of Amrito , (also Vivek) .

She wanted through removing Amrito and Vivek to control Lao Tzu with her own people.....etc. “

“Can any of these crimes be put down to Osho’s promoting or instruction?”

“ Not a chance” .

“During 1980,81,82 I often accompanied Sheela on her nightly visits to Osho. I sat in on many of those sessions. I heard about many of the sessions that I did not attend up to the end of the Ranch. In all of this I never saw Osho’s hand of knowledge in what amounted to Sheela’s dirty tricks.” [148]

I would appreciate some advice, as there appear to be people who do not want to discuss their reasons for interfering with other peoples edits, even though I have asked them.

Eternity5090 (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Eternity5090. I'm afraid that Wikipedia is different from many projects in ways that you probably don't realise. The significant thing here is that Wikipedia has very little interest in what the subject of an article, or people closely associated with that subject, have to say about the subject. Information from them is regarded as a primary source, and may be used in limited ways, provided it has been published somewhere with a reputation for fact-checking. The bulk of a Wikipedia article should be based on secondary sources: where people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish substantial material about the subject (again in a place with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking). So the content of an interview is acceptable as a source only for uncontroversial factual data like places and dates (provided these are in fact uncontroversial). Please follow the links earlier in this paragraph for more information.
As for copyright: in the absence of an explicit statement to the contrary, Wikipedia makes the basic assumption that all material is copyright. In order to use text published elsewhere in a Wikipedia article, we would require that the owner of the copyright to that text make an explicit declaration (either in public, eg where the material is actually published, or in a private email to the relevant team at Wikimedia) that it has been released under a licence which permits anybody to reuse it for any purpose. See donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


Hi, ColinFine. I have realised that now, the page of the interview is indeed copyrighted, so I will ask for permission. There is no reason why some of the content should not be used, as it is directly related to the topic in question. And other qoutes have been used on the page, that are also taken from people directly related to the question. So I will ask for copyright.Eternity5090 (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Eternity5090. First of all, you misunderstand copyright. Everything published is by current law copyrighted and no formal copyright notice is required. The reverse is true. A website or any other publication must have a statement formally releasing the content into the public domain, or the copyright must have expired because the publication date was pre-1923, or other clear legal conditions exist, in order to conclude that material is not copyrighted. It is OK to include a few brief quotations from copyrighted material but each and every individual quote must be properly attributed and referenced. In my opinion, your use of quotes is excessive and instead you should accurately paraphrase the questions and answers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Eternity5090 Firstly; that is far too large a chunk of text to be copying from anywhere, with too many quotes, in a question and answer format not suitable for an encyclopedia, and too repetitive even if not copyrighted. It would be far better to summarise it; however even if you do summarise it, its not from what Wikipedia would call a "reliable source". It appears to be someones self published blog,/forum with no evidence of editorial oversight. Who conducted the "interview", and when? who wrote it? none of this is clear from the website. See WP:RS for what a reliable source is. Have a look at the other references used in the article- they are all newspapers or books- no blogs.
I can see you have tried to discuss it, however, you still kept trying to put your edit in before the matter was resolved and were edit warring against two other editors, which is not a good idea. Curdle (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Moving Article from my Sandbox to Draft for Review

Hello Teahouse!

I have finished my article in my Sandbox, and would now like it reviewed for publication in Draft. I entered "move to Draft" but have been told it is appearing as a "blank" document. How do I correct this? Many Thanks! Zuzuroo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Carole Basinger: You moved the mostly blank page User:Carole Basinger instead of your sandbox, User:Carole Basinger/sandbox. I'll delete Draft:Carole Basinger so you can move the sandbox there. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
@Carole Basinger: Actually, I went ahead and moved the draft from your sandbox to Draft:Brian Rosenworcel as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Ian.thompson! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carole Basinger (talk • contribs) 20:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ian.thomson!Zuzuroo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

This is about what is now Draft:Brian Rosenworcel. Carole Basinger, you will need to read Help: Referencing for beginners, and do some work on the references, so that the text contains actual links to the references instead of dummy links like "[8]". Maproom (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Page published in October, but still not visible online

Hello, We have created and published a page on Wiki, but it is not visible online after 2 months. The title of the page is "Micropore particle technology (MPPT). What needs to be done to activate global publication?Fsd25 (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Bellezzasolo. I searched for pages matching that title and couldn't find any records. It's likely to have been deleted if created in Mainspace, but I couldn't find a record in deletion logs. It looks like you may have created it on User:Fsd25. That's the only thing I can find under your contributions, although deleted pages won't show there. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Regarding publication, you should follow the Articles for creation process, where independent reviewers will ensure that the article compiles with our policies before publishing the page to the article namespace. It may be best to move your userspace draft to Draft:Micropore particle technology (MPPT) to this effect. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Found it in his contribs. It's called Draft:Micropore particle technology.--Biscuit-in-Chief (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Fsd25. You have not submitted your draft for review. If you want it reviewed, then click the blue button at the top that says "Finished drafting? Submit for review!" Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

A problem: for medicine-related articles there is a high standard for what are accepted as citations (see WP:MEDRS). This means no pre-clinical, no case studies, no conference abstracts and no clinical trials (really). Are there published review articles that address the use of MPPT? If not yet, this may be just too soon. David notMD (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! And yes, there is a published review article in the November issue of Wounds this year. The articles are peer-reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsd25 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

That is the first ref (which I just changed to proper format). The problem remains with the other refs, as they report on pre-clinical work, a clinical trial and case studies. Does not matter if published in peer reviewed journals. Minimally, refs 2, 4 and 5 need to be removed, along with the sentences supported by these refs. You could try resubmitting with the clinical trial ref, but odds are strong that a reviewer would rightfully reject that as primary research, and then decline the entire article. P.S. Sign your comments by typing four of ~ a end. David notMD (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Article on Bashkardi people?

hi all, i have received a question on my talkpage; Caddyspoked has asked why WP has an article on Bashkardi language but not one on Bashkardi people? a quick look on google doesnt really bring up much (as a non-academic/librarian that is my go to research tool), maybe someone here can help? i have also left the same question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran. thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up to Where has Visual Editor gone??!!

Hello - I recently made some changes to a stub that someone else had created, about my grandfather F J Browne: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_James_Browne I did this using Visual Editor, which I found to be great. Today I wanted to add a reference, and I can't find how to get into Visual Editor. What am I doing wrong? (The only 'Edit' button or tab I can see is labelled 'Edit Source'. Why can't I see a Visual Edit button?) p.s. If anyone answers this, is it possible to get an email? Otherwise I don't see it unless I look! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JazzBadger (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello @JazzBadger:. When you click that "Edit source" tab, you can change to Visual editor from there. Look at the top right corner of the editing pane, you'll see an icon shaped like a pen, click on it, you'll see "visual editor" option, then choose it. On your second question, it's partly possible. You should go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo and scroll down to "Mention" and tick the box against it under email header. If you do that, whenever someone mentions you in an answer, you'll be notified via email. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
@JazzBadger: Adding to what Ammarpad has helpfully said above, be aware that in your Preferences settings under the 'Editing' Tab that there is a way to select which editor(s) are offered to you (see here.) You can choose whether to "Show me both editor tabs", "Give me the Visual Editor if possible", or "Remember my last editor" and other options. Most times when the editing tool you want suddenly goes missing, it's because you've got your Preferences set wrong. Let us know if this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding to a Dab page

Looking up Heitor Villa-Lobos, I lazily entered just villalobos in the search field and arrived at Villalobos, a disambiguation page listing a surname and a DJ, a band, a municipality, a river, and a gunboat bearing it, all with the same spelling. I added

at the foot of the list,.

But I'm wondering:

  1. Should I insert a subhead between the six Villalobos-es and the lone Villa-Lobos?
  2. Should I move the composer, who is the best-known of these, to the top of the list, and if so how should I word and format it? E.g.,
    "Villalobos" may be a misspelled reference to Heitor Villa-Lobos, a Brazilian composer. It may also refer to

--Thnidu (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thnidu and thanks for your question at the Teahouse. I'm going to stick my neck out a bit (i.e. without fully checking the guidelines) and give you a very quick gut-reply; others may wish to correct me. I would put all the Villalobos entries in alphabetical order, and then I would then add a 'See also' section in which I'd put Heitor Villa-Lobos and USS Villalobos (PG-42) although others might wish to keep the gunboat in the main alphabetical list. I wouldn't put the most visited page first -alphabetical order suits most users best. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: I would disagree with you and say that Heitor Villa-Lobos should not be added due to the page Villalobos (surname) existing. There are dozens of people with the lastname Villalobos, and they belong on the page Villalobos (surname), not Villalobos (disambiguation). See MOS:DABNAME. MarkZusab (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@MarkZusab: Yes, it doesn't take long to recognise that you are right, and I am not. Thanks for that contribution. I did say I was being hasty, but maybe I simply shouldn't have replied at all. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, MarkZusab. And when I went just now to carry out your suggestion, I found that you'd already done it. Excellent! :-)
Except that
both link to the same article. :-(
--Thnidu (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Thnidu: I fixed that by making the first link go to Horacio Villalobos (photographer) instead. MarkZusab (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@MarkZusab: Thanks. I didn't know what the articles were named. --Thnidu (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Perceived Flyspecking Editors ... Is This Normal?

There seem to be two types of people on this side of Wikipedia. There are those neophytes (like me) who focus on the subject-matter (the meat) of any given article. They are generally very intelligent people with significant (sometimes highly technical) information to share ... and then there are those who focus on the 'process' of article-writing. They often act like cops, blowing their whistle and leaving public announcements with big red iconology and terse formats on talk pages. There is no discussion, No detail. No specificity. They zip in out of nowhere, act unilaterally, seemingly harass, and generally relish the unique power and responsibilities they have been given. And then they disappear.

They seem to be on a power-trip at times.

I am a serious editor who wishes to write substantive informational articles, but the way it is done is like a small taser every so often that feels like Skinner Box training ... always leaving a 'scarlet letter' in my in-box. Is this normal? I would think it could be done better than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Architecttype (talk • contribs)

Hello, Architecttype and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for your observation - not normally the type of question we receive here, but I understand to some degree where you're coming from. I'll try to address it from my perspective, if I may (i.e. an expert in a limited range of topics with an interest across many areas, and with a desire to see this encyclopaedia develop, and to help others, yet not be damaged by trouble-makers). Be aware that I started to draft this reply to you before I realised you had rather unhelpfully deleted two edits from your talk page which would have allowed me to understand the context of your question far better. It is unreasonable to expect us to be mind-readers, though I do address the two concerns about your editing later on in my reply.
Wikipedia is currently the 5th most visited website in the world, with over 5.5 million encyclopaedic articles on English Wikipedia alone, all free to be edited by anyone at any time. We welcome knowledgeable experts, like you, who want to contribute in a really positive way. But on the opposite side of the spectrum we have a minority who love to disrupt, damage or deface articles. In between, we have keen editors who do not understand our rules and policies on such matters as copyright violation, promotion, ensuring a neutral point of view, or only using Reliable Sources. Keeping up with ensuring that experts, like you, only add content that is supported by Reliable references and in conformity with our Manual of Style and other policies, whilst also ensuring that vandals and puerile school kids don't damage our content - whilst also trying to create content of our own - can be a daunting task for any committed editor here. A wide range of relatively experienced editors try to help out by managing how content is added, and guiding today's newcomers to ensure that they become the content-creators of tomorrow. To that end, some of us volunteer to help newcomers in this Teahouse; others help elsewhere.
The problem we have is that there are relatively few editors committed to keep the place spick and span, and we encounter so many contributions that are not of the highest quality that we are supplied with a suite of easy-to-use template messages to help us welcome, guide, berate, warn or even report those editors who do not contribute as we require them to. Inevitably, these messages may appear to recipients as terse comments, dropped seemingly randomly on your (or others') talk pages. I don't think any of us are bully-boy cops - we try to support, guide, encourage, welcome, warn or, if necessary, report new editors for repeated bad actions. And we're always here to be questioned, challenged, or even reported on our actions, or to respond to requests for clarification. But, if you want a response, you will have to ensure you address your question properly to the editors who leaves a note on your talk page. The best way is to ask for clarification on their talk page.
I do accept that a very small number of editors here can sometimes be rather too terse in the way they interact with new editors, but I hope we get the balance right here at the Teahouse? By way of just one example of how we try to help new editors, late last night I spent a considerable amount of my time delving into the contributions of just one new editor, leaving critical (yet supportive) comments on their talk page about my concerns about how they were editing highly technical medical topics in a way that wasn't ideal. I felt obligated to support another editor's proposal that one of their contributions was so poor that it should be deleted but, before supporting that deletion, I tried to tidy up their referencing and read through their sources, only to discover that the content they had added was in not referred to in their citations. Yet they clearly had very technical expertise in the subject. I spent half an hour drafting a (hopefully) gentle message expressing my concerns at their gung-ho approach to editing. I wanted to encourage them to do better, not stop them. Whilst doing all this, another experienced editor with administrator rights gave them an indefinite block for bad-faith editing and a violation of our username policy. Whilst it didn't surprise me they had got themselves blocked, I really felt sorry for the newcomer and contacted the administrator to ask them to explain why this was done, and observing that I felt a permanent block seemed rather harsh under the circumstances. I finally got to bed at 2am, having spent three hours trying to balance issues around incompetent editing by a technically skilled newcomer, poor referencing and addition of unverifiable statements, plus discussions by other editors on the merits of merging one article they had created into another.
We honestly try to help new editors here on Wikipedia, but not all of us can dedicate three hours every night to just one person when there are 5 million articles potentially being edited, and 30,000 active editors. So short, terse instructions or warning messages may be all we can sometimes leave to ensure that this fine encyclopaedia continues to flourish and grow, and that the broad spectrum of editors contribute as effectively as possible. (I could have provide diffs to demonstrate what I've said above, but that would have been invidious.) It is, however, typical of how I, together with innumerable other experienced editors here, work collaboratively to help and encourage good editing. I am genuinely sorry if your perception of how we operate has led you to conclude we like leaving short, sharp, nasty messages for people as a 'power trip'. That couldn't be further from the truth and I think we all take great pride in the work we try to do here.
If your concerns revolved around this notice on your Talk Page, it does seem fair to me. It appears you pasted copyrighted content into an article, and that is not allowed here, and all your edits were deleted by an experienced adminstrator. Users who are warned and then continue to repeat such actions soon find themselves blocked from further editing because this is, effectively, content theft. However, this unsigned warning post by Breaking sticks about promotional editing was not clear to me, either. The simple response would have been for you to have post a question on their talk page - do not expect them to monitor every page they post on if you do not yet understand how to WP:PING another editor. I'm sorry this reply became so long-winded, but I do hope you find my reply helps to address any misconceptions you may have had about how we try to support and help new users. As always, we're here at the Teahouse to help you and other new editors with any problems you encounter. (We are on your side, honest!) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm one of the uneducated, red icon cops on a power trip, just issuing a friendly reminder to all the technically fired-up super-intelligent Neophites out there to take a second to sign your posts with four keyboard tildes (~) at the end of each post you add to a talk page. Many thanks Edaham (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Architecttype: Given that you just came on board this month, your accomplishments have been remarkable - over a thousand edits, two articles approved, two more in draft, major additions to two more. The one major hiccup I saw was the removal of copyrighted content from one article. Wikipedia takes copyright violations EXTREMELY seriously, and I did see that you returned to that article without subsequent copyright problems. A minor note - you are labeling almost all of your edits as minor edits. Please review that definition and tag your edits appropriately going forward. Your knowledge and efforts on Sarasota architecture are lauded. David notMD (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful input. I appreciate knowing how to 'sign' my talk entries now. Yes, I removed the 'red alerts' from my personal talk page, mainly because I had addressed the issues mentioned in them (and besides, who wants to have a permanent 'F' on their report card?). As you could see, I rewrote the entirety of the article without pasting, (as with all of the articles I have written so far ... I even did my own photography) but felt that, in the case of the organization I was describing, they would have preferred their own self-definition than to have me mangle it through contorted paraphrasing in order to avoid the wiki-cops. Perhaps I should have added quotations? In the case of 'Breaking Sticks', it seemed like a bot-type of response. I attempted to contact that person to inquire, but didn't quite know the best way to accomplish it. In any case, he/she did not respond. I can appreciate the work of 'wiki-enforcers', particularly when one contemplates the global access of wikipedia, but I wish there was a better way to separate the wheat from the chaff. I think it's pretty clear that I have no agenda other than to improve a handful of architecture-related pages. As far as 'minor' versus major edits, when creating a new page, I do it offsite using html and import the whole thing in (except for some footnoting, where I feel more confident using the template tool). When editing existing articles, I do much of it online. Yeah, I've done lots of tiny changes and moved things here and there, but I'm a perfectionist and want the page to be great, both textually and visually. I tend to fine-tune things a bit. The only advice I would give you is that wiki-cops seem to rely on process rules far too much ... honestly, does it matter if an edit is checked as 'minor' or not, as long as the article is vastly improved? Wiki-enforcers need to have that latitude with contributors. Did they produce an excellent result? Yes? Then fine, let's not flag them for checking 'minor edit'. I know dozens of really competent people who could contribute wonderfully to Wikipedia, but they simply wouldn't tolerate the constant rap on the knuckles that you seem to dispense (sometimes with great relish. For example, the enforcer who wrote the word 'no' 97 times in a row in a discussion here in teahouse). The only people left to edit Wiki are those willing to navigate the labyrinth of process rules to do it, and I would submit to you that they are probably not likely to be the subject-matter experts you need to write the articles in the first place. Wiki-enforcers need to ask themselves ... in the end, what is most important, the process or the end result? Architecttype (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I was just notified that an article I wrote was autobiographical. It is not. I am not that person, nor have I ever met that person. As a matter of fact, I just wrote another article on an architect who died a month ago. I am not that person, either, although I met him in a Publix bathroom once fifteen years ago. For the article in question, Guy Peterson, I used the already-existing article on living architect Max Strang who has a similar page, as a rough template. Strang's is without all the offensive wiki-enforcer blather at the top. His article seems to be acceptable, even though it is very similar to the one I authored. I can tell you, as a subject-matter expert, that both architects are equally worthy of articles, perhaps Peterson more-so, in terms of accomplishment and awards (Peterson fits somewhere between Strang and I.M. Pei and his article reflects this, I think). Virtually every sentence is supported by footnoting. It is just this type of uneven article treatment by wiki-enforcers that drives contributors nuts. Was it somehow in response to our conversation here in teahouse? Wiki-enforcers can be capricious like that. Please advise. Architecttype (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Architecttype. In a huge collaborative editing project such as Wikipedia mistakes are bound to be made. When they happen, it's best to try and assume good-faith and try to resolve any issues through civil discussion without labeling other editors one way or another. We as editors don't WP:OWN the articles we create and edit, and for sure it can be quite frustrating at times when we wake up and find our "work" from the night before has be changed by someone else. However, that's the nature of an encyclopedia that anyone anywhere in the world with an Internet connection can edit at anytime. So, while aiming for perfection is a noble goal, Wikipedia is by its very nature WP:IMPERFECT.
I think most experienced editors try to aim to be WP:HERE as much as possible; so, if they add a maintenance template, etc. to an article (such templates are generally helpful and are not offensive at all in my opinion) or a user warning template to a user talk page, then they are usually doing so in good faith. While your knowledge about things architecture is an asset, another important part of editing is simply learning how to work collaboratively with others. Being an subject-expert is not going to gain you any special privileges as explained in WP:EXPERT and article content is still going to need to be determined through WP:CONSENSUS.
As for the minor edits, it might not be such a big deal as you say, but at the same time there's really no need mark an edit as such unless the edit is really minor. Some editors mistakenly check "This is a minor edit" when probably they shouldn't, but it's not the end of the world. Such a thing usually only tends to be an issue when a person is marking all of their edits as minor, is advised not to do so by one or more other editors, and then continues on doing so despite the warnings. Like anything on Wikipedia, making a "mistake" once or maybe even twice, is generally not a big deal; however, repeating the same "mistake" over and over again after being advised not to is usually when things start to be seen a disruptive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. It would seem to make sense that subject-matter experts should exert greater influence over their subject-matter than random Wiki-contributors. I know nothing about the Kardashians, and you will never see me edit their articles. I believe I have stripped the article clean of anything insightful, and think it has reached the appropriate state of superficiality. I assume that's what it needed. With such changes made, I've pulled the banners ... and didn't check 'minor edit'. Wikipedia can, and should, be so much better than this. Sad. Architecttype (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Bellezzasolo. When I was a younger editor, I felt exactly the way you do, with my first edit. This clearly violated policies against original research, although it could have been discussed at the mathematics refdesk. I felt especially perturbed because mathematics is a field with outright facts, unlike say, English. The culture on Wikipedia can take a bit of getting used to, but policies have developed for a reason, and, as you keep editing, you will generally come to appreciate them! They do help maintain the quality of articles, although they can be intimidating at first. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Suggest you read WP:OWN and Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is a collective effort. Separate from content, there is an intention to adhere to Wikipedia style. Once you have created an article it is open for others to add, subtract, etc. If you disagree with changes, the place to address that is the Talk page of the article. Wikipedia is not a place for editors' insights. Many an editor - myself included - has been reverted for adding original research, insight, synthesis, etc. Is what it is - an encyclopedia - not a place for experts to share their wisdom. David notMD (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Bellezzasolo. FYI, I'm pretty sure I'm older than you.:) I think what offended some wiki-enforcers in my article was the quote, taken directly from an interview with the subject (and properly footnoted). It was not original work on my part, but it was 'insightful' to the extent that it relates to his philosophy as an architect. Somehow this was mistaken for POV or being autobiographic, but clearly was not. There is a fine line between the necessity of preventing POV, etc ... and sanitizing articles until they become nothing but footnoted checklists of facts. It's not my intention to be antagonistic, but when I read the user pages of some of the wiki-cops who browbeat (sometimes gleefully) potentially valuable contributors it creates a sense of cynicism and resentment for the entire process. I can see why many worthy contributors throw up their hands and walk away. The haranguing simply is not worth it.Architecttype (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I deleted that, not because it was original work on your part, or accused of being autobiographic (that was a different editor's error), but specifically because it was from an interview with the subject of the article. Interview content is not appropriate. What people say about themselves - interviews, their own blogs/websites - is not usable content. It's not personal, it's just Wikipedia (to loosely paraphrase The Godfather). David notMD (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Architecttype: Continuing to refer to others as "wiki-enforcers", "wiki-cops" and "wiki-bullies" and assume they are only interested in browbeating others or are acting in WP:BADFAITH like here and here is a WP:BATTLEFIELD type of approach that is not helpful at all. You might feel the way Wikipedia has been set up is sad, but all of us have to learn to try and edit according to its policies and guidelines, which include Wikipedia:Behavioral guidelines. If we deviate too much from these guidelines too many times to the point that it starts to get disruptive, then the community may decide that whatever specialized knowledge we are capable of providing simply doesn't outweigh the problems we are creating. The community may then decide to tell us its time to either slow down and reassess our approach or to move on altogether. New editors are expected not to know everything Wikipedia right from the get go and good faith will be assumed when they make mistakes; however, as per Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact, the community does have its limits on assuming good faith. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Architecttype: Sadly, I have to agree with Marchjuly's comments above. Having taken a fair bit of time yesterday night to try to explain to you how we operate, and why sometimes messages left for users who breach our policies can seem a little terse (and effectively apologising to you for that), I'm really disappointed to see you are still using derogatory terms like 'wiki-cop' and 'wiki-enforcer' in your posts. I am starting to sense that, whilst you might be a technical expert and are making great contributions in your field, you may also have an attitude problem towards other editors. Please drop it, and simply recognise the essential efforts of those who maintain this site, and stop disparaging the necessary task of those who ensure that the 5.5 million articles here are maintained in good order. OK, so you've received a couple of minor notices encouraging you to modify your editing (one of which I still don't understand), but it's time to get over it and stop being nasty about other contributors here. Being belligerent is not a nice way to deal with others - it just sounds arrogant. And that almost inevitably leads to conflict. Kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Nick Moyes. I have posted some thoughts on my user talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Architecttype) regarding my experience today. I mean every word of it and sincerely hope that Wikipedia can be made better. Regards.Architecttype (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not perfect by any means, and it has received a fair amount of criticism over the years. If you'd like to make suggestions on how it can be improved, then the place for that is probably at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), one of the general noticeboards or a relevant policy/guideline talk page. Not only will more people be watching those pages than are watching your user talk page, but also project-wide changes are best decided by the community as a whole and not by user talk page discussion. I believe what you're sincere and mean well, but at the seem time you seem quick to see things the issues your having as "a Wikipedia problem" instead possibly being a problem with the approach your taking. Even the very title you've chose for this thread and the tone you used in your original comment kind of indicated that you've decided that you are in the right and the others are in the wrong. Wikipedia, however, is not really about winning and its policies and guidelines have been established over many years with input from many different people. This doesn't mean they don't need to occasionally be reviewed and changed as needed, but it does mean that some thought went into establishing them and it was determined (at least at the time) through a consensus of the community that they are consistent with and help further the project's overall goals. Part of being WP:HERE is recognizing those goals and doing our best to adhere to them at all times. It's OK to be WP:NOTNOTHERE and propose changes in good-faith without feeling the need to attach a label to everyone who disagrees with you along the way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia has become dystopian. The process has become more important than the product. Seriously, take the time to read the boilerplate written above (You're not doing it right ... there's a certain way we do things here ... you can't say that here. No, TALK pages, TEAHOUSE, and PNB are for just talking, you need to go to VILLAGEPUMP. No, you must use our NOTGALLERY and NOTNOTHERE policy. Nope, cannot BLANK pages, against policy, you actions have been reverted.) IMPERFECT.OWN.CONSENSUS.NOTEVERYTHING.YFA.CIT.CITE.NOTABLE.HERE.REDACT.API.REFB.SANDBOX.NOTNOTHERE.5P.WIN.BLANK.IUP.OTHERCONTENT.HIGHMAINT.CONLEVEL.POLICY. Wikipedia's policies and rules have become a bulwark to defend the fortress against outsiders. Thats why there is a dearth of good editors.
Is the goal to produce good Wikipedia articles? Yes. Is the Wikipedia article on Guy Peterson better written, footnoted, and documented than ninety percent of the articles on Wikipedia? Probably. Perhaps you would be better served looking after the poor articles, than shredding this one. You really need to ask yourselves why that is (I think I know). I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears, but my last bit advice for all of you is ... let go of the policy book (or at least apply them consistently) and focus on producing good articles. Bye. Architecttype (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I have removed inadvertent and duplicate text. Thanks. Architecttype (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, you're annoyed, I get that. You've also contributed a lot, in a short time, so thanks for that. This is the stuff we need. You look like just the sort of editor we're after.
So what's the problem? What's annoying you? What would make it better? (Apologies for not reading all above, but time's always tight on everyone (and I'm just here goofing off from work)).
I see a 5k revert on your recent edits. Now that's going to grate with anyone! But, looking at it more carefully, I can see their point. They might not be right (not my field, I don't know), but they have a good reason for reverting. If you disagree, then the next step is a talk: page - user first to clarify why, then article or project to see if this interpretation is what most of us think. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: The above discussion (minus the final post by Andy Dingley) has been moved/copied-and-pasted by the OP to WT:RETENTION#Case Study: Why Wikipedia Loses Editors ..., so it's probably best to continue it there to keep things in one place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Marchjuly: I appreciate your 'ping' from the Editor Retention page, but I decided not to contribute further to this Teahouse discussion, which probably now needs collapsing. I certainly won't be contributing to an ongoing discussion that has migrated to that page. I tried to give a lengthy, considered and, I hope, reasoned response to the OP here, as I genuinely care very deeply about editor retention, and have always striven to assist or defend every user, whether young or old. However, despite some great content contributions, I now sense this particular OP has a bit of a 'chip on their shoulder' and an abrasive attitude which, despite them decrying it in others, we won't remove from them, as evidenced by their continued use of derogatory terms such as 'wiki-cops' and 'wiki-enforcer' subsequent to our responses here. If they choose not to listen to explanations given in good faith, that is their prerogative. Whilst their expert contributions are to be welcomed, their dismissive attitude to others is not. Taking that stance will not put the Wiki-world to rights, nor will their apparent reluctance to listen to other editors explaining how and why we operate as we do dissuade them from their assumptions and accusations of some sort of male-dominated cabal of petty-minded incompetents against genuine experts, all of whom should be permitted to edit here just as they please. This discussion should either be held at the OP's talk page, or continued here in a collapsed form. Moving it to a third location is not appropriate. It is for those at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention to view our discussions and interactions dispassionately and to decide, independently, what issues they may raise. For example, are we, as Teahouse hosts collectively encouraging or putting off new editors with expertise, and what can be done about it and to guide us if we are? We should not move ongoing discussions there, as this only serves to confuse everyone, especially new editors. As someone who has adopted another highly professional world expert who brought none of this attitudinal baggage, I feel the concerns expressed by this new editor at the Teahouse may never be assuaged, and are probably not representative of everyone else, even if some of the points they raise are valid. I am pinging Jtmorgan who has an interest in how this forum is run. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC) 
    • @Nick Moyes: The OP is the one who copied and pasted this thread (along with several others from different talk pages) onto WT:Retention just in case that wasn't clear. I just posted a courtesy link here just to let others know that the discussion as been apparently moved to another page. I don't see any reason why this thread cannot be closed, especially since any further attempts to respond to the OP here is likely only going to lead to a fragmented discussion at best. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

How long should my Wikipedia article be?

I've written a 31 page biography of an artist with maybe 30 photos or more. Should I re-create the whole thing here, or cut it back to a few pages with a few photos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RANJR (talk • contribs) 23:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@RANJR: WHOA, hold up! It's not about length but about citing at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the topic but independent of it. All the information in there needs to be supported by reliable sources as well. I'll leave more detailed instructions on your page. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, RANJR. I am in complete agreement with Ian.thomson here. References to reliable, independent, secondary sources are like golden bricks when building an acceptable Wikipedia article. Our job, primarily, is to accurately summarize those sources. Everything else is minor in comparison to the real reason that we create encyclopedia articles, which is to summarize reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Attaching a photo

Hi, Can I attach a photo saved on my computer? This photo is also on the photographer's computer. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mona3003 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mona3003. Copyright is very complex so I will have an answer based only on what you have said here. In most cases, the legal copyright for a photograph that you found on the internet is held by the photographer. If so, then only that photographer can upload that image only if they are willing to release that image under the terms of an acceptable free license. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
If the photographer is willing to do that, you can direct them here:[1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

the popups about how few people donate and such

they really might very dramatically reduce how much people donate by signaling the existence of a strong norm for not donating. I would suggest listing the number of people who DID donate not as a percentage but as tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people

I took a course in behavioral economics through Toronto University and this is just one of those things that people actually do really commonly but which has the opposite of the intended effect. Mentioning low voter turnout reduces voter turnout and actually it's also been specifically checked for how it effects donating to charities and it's a very strong effect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingtoph (talk • contribs) 09:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Flyingtoph. That makes sense to me and reminds me of experiments I've read about where people are most likely to be encouraged to recycle if they are told that the majority of their neighbours do so. Unfortunately (other Teahouse hosts might correct me here), I don't think us Wikipedia editors have any say in the design of the fundraising campaigns, which are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (see Wikipedia:Contact us/Donors), so I'm not sure we have any way of acting on your advice. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion, Flyingtoph. I think the campaign is run from the Wikimedia Foundation, rather than within Wikipedia. I think the best place to engage is at meta:Fundraising. --ColinFine (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_883&oldid=1138690213"