Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 430

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 425←Archive 428Archive 429Archive 430Archive 431Archive 432→Archive 435

Design

Hello, how do I do that design, when as you? I.e Colored letters, different font, etc.? Lukaslt13 (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Lukaslt13Lukaslt13 (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. My guess is that you are referring to fancy signatures. Please read WP:Signatures and WP:Signature tutorial for full details of how to create a custom signature. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, very much ! Lukaslt13 (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Lukaslt13Lukaslt13 (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
More you can help? How do I do that page color is not white, and other such dark yellow? Or what ornaments to decorate? (Of course if it is possible). ― Lukaslt13|✉   14:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Lukaslt13― Lukaslt13|✉   14:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

1RR on glyphosate

The glyphosate page is under 1RR imposed by ArbCom. Earlier today, an editor made a change to the description of this chemical in the lede which was chemically incorrect. I have made an edit correcting this, with an edit summary explaining the chemical mistake. I presume this edit constitutes a revert. Now, the chemistry section also needs expanding and redrafting, which I am well qualified to do, but this will involve removing content and thus would technically involve a revert (I think). Is the 1RR restriction meant to limit editing in this way, or am I interpreting it incorrectly? Am I supposed to try to rewrite sections and replace wholesale in a single edit (so as to involve only a single revert of long-standing text), thereby avoiding a series of smaller edits where an intervening edit to another section could render the changes in violation of the 1RR?

Note that the article was recently fully protected for an edit war and there is content which is disputed. The changes I am contemplating (dealing with the industrial synthesis of the chemical, for example) are not in the areas of controversy which deal with genetic modifications. I am not going to edit war, I'm just trying to understand how the rule works for edits which would be uncontroversial, factual, and supported by reliable sources. EdChem (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm puzzled; how can you tell it is 1RR? I can't see anything on the article that indicates this, and I don't want to fall foul of a ruling like that out of ignorance.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
It's in the ArbCom notice at the top of the talk page. EdChem (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see it now - thanks, EdChem.--Gronk Oz (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
But as many editors do not (ever) read talk pages, there should be an edit notice at the top of the article's edit page - could a template editor add one please - Arjayay (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@EdChem: Whether or not editing Glyphosate#Chemistry constitutes a revert depends on whether or not you are either adding something someone very recently go rid of, or removing something else very recently added; as far as I am aware changing long-standing text does not constitute a revert at all. As the area you are planning to edit has not been the subject of this controversy, I shouldn't think it constitutes a revert, but I'd check the recent history just in case. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 15:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I have added the appropriate page notice. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Taketa - I think penalizing people when there is no notice to inform them of the 1RR would be rather extreme - Arjayay (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Taketa for creating the template for the edit notice - excellent idea. EdChem (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I note Rubbish computer's response (thank you) that the definition of revert does not include long standing text, though I can't find that really described in policy. Maybe some change to policy text is needed? EdChem (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@EdChem: Possibly: you can bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring, if you want. It appears to be common sense, otherwise any edit could be classed as a revert. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 16:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
At the moment, glyphosate may be the most contentious article in Wikipedia. If you are hoping to improve a technical section, that's a good idea but it would be best to post something on the talk page explaining your plans. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to clean up a page but don't know how to proceed

I got a link to this page – about an Australian martial artist -- from Pages for Cleanup. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Zadro It does not meet the standard for notability. From what's here, he's not a champion, there are no real references, and the sources offered aren't that legit. But there is an archived debate about deleting the page which concludes that the article could be saved if it were clearned up, and offers a bunch of newspaper articles about the source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Zadro

So, the subject MAY be a champion and notable, but I can't tell because none of the articles in the archived page are online. They are from Australian newspapers starting around 2006.

So, how do we fix this? And this archived debate was from 2012 and no one has done anything. How long will this flawed article be allowed to hang around? Jmatazzoni (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I have proposed the article for deletion as an unsourced BLP. This leaves seven days to improve the article or contest the nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I would be prone not to use the term "flawed" article as the STAR standard has yet to be achieved for a majority of WP articles. Until an article that has been flagged for being unsatisfactorily meeting the notability standard is removed it really is in purgatory. There really does not appear to be a "regular" process to improve articles except through hit and miss as talk pages get archived and the previous concerns basically removed from consideration unless for some reason a contributor believes that a due diligence is needed in order for an article to meet the STAR standard. If we want to use non-judgmental terms to express what is said in WP articles we should also use the same standard about describing what needs to be improved. Somehow, questions about an article's text needs to be noted in the article as sub-text with a direction to the source of discussion. Otherwise, the advisories that appear at the top of articles generally go unprocessed let alone discussions on article talk pages. At least with a trail someone can more easily navigate the nooks and cronies of WP. WP should not be a cob web for only a few to know how to find what is needed to make it the best that it can be even by the novice contributor.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Srednuas Lenoroc. What is the STAR standard, please? Thank you. MargaretThis dress is too similar to the other one (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi This dress is too similar to the other one. What I believe Srednuas Lenoroc is referring to is Wikipedia's featured content—Wikipedia identifies its best, most complete articles through a comprehensive vetting process, and articles that pass this process are distinguished by a small bronze star in the top right corner of the article (see Harry Glicken for an example). Ultimately, Wikipedia is a work in progress, and articles are allowed to be imperfect (and the vast, vast majority of articles are). How quickly an article gets improved depends on the time and interest Wikipedians are willing to put into it. At the deletion discussion for the page that Jmatazzoni linked to, a user found a bunch of sources on a research database called NewsBank. Access to NewsBank is typically through your local library. Our article development information page gives some good advice for developing an article. If an article is genuinely non-notable, the solution is typically either to merge the content into another article, or as a last resort, to delete the article. Hope this helps, Mz7 (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Mz7 NewsBank is a lot harder to find than that. North Carolina libraries used to be able to access it, but only a few papers, mostly those in the state. That got too expensive. I was lucky to have a local college library for a while, which had access to all newspapers, but that was cut because I was the only one that ever used it. I can drive to another library that has it but don't do it that often.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@Vchimpanzee: Ah, thanks for clarifying. I suppose I am lucky that the Columbus Metropolitan Library offers it. Maybe this is something The Wikipedia Library should consider? Mz7 (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
They tried, but NewsBank said no. I too was one of the lucky ones and my Wikipedia edits over the years show this.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
@Mz7:— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Question on WP:Onus and WP:Consensus

(I can see people are top-posting here, so moving my bottom-post up, for greater visibility:)

There is this somewhat contentious article on Racial_segregation, which had been semi-protected against WP:PRECED IPs a couple of times, see e.g. its history.

Now, I had sought consensus for e.g. its Racial_segregation#Liberia section, see the relevant part of the Talk page, and modified the content and sources considerably in reaction to valid criticism, so that e.g. no WP:OR can be claimed. The opposite argument was then used by nameless IPs, that it is a WP:Copyvio now (with 6 refs in 3 sentences?!), which I rebutted in turn claiming Wikipedia:Onus for them to prove it. There are about 5 named editors who support my edits, against 1 named editor who refuses by now to talk more on Talk Page and X IPs who revert (unless not semi-protected). An edit war is ongoing, alas.

Should I/we: 1. Request semi- or full- protection again via WP:ANI for the article , [has not worked] that well for the very same sections?

2. Use an WP:A/R instead - a new tool for me, for the editor who apart from veiled WP:Personal (see e.g. [here] and above) claims that I have not sought consensus, reverts and does not even answer anymore on the Talk Page, just reverts?

3. Use an WP:RfC? If so, how to word it?

Zezen (talk) 07:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It isn't clear from your description or from the talk page whether you consider this to be a content dispute or a conduct dispute, and that does determine what to do next. If you aren't sure, read the dispute resolution policy, and it distinguishes them. I wouldn't recommend requesting arbitration, because that is the last step, and you haven't followed earlier steps, and are reasonably asking which ones to follow. If this is a content dispute, such as whether to include a section about Liberia, then it is reasonable to use a Request for Comments. Word it neutrally, and, if necessary, request assistance in wording it neutrally. I wouldn't recommend the use of WP:ANI, either for sanctions against the IPs or to request semi-protection. WP:ANI doesn't work well against IP's, unless they are static, which they seldom are. The way to request semi-protection is Requests for Page Protection. If the IPs are engaging in personal attacks, you may need to make the unusual request to semi-protect the talk page. Most administrators normally don't like to semi-protect talk pages, because that deprives the IPs of the right to request edits, but they don't have the right to engage in personal attacks. So: Don't request arbitration. That is premature. Don't go to WP:ANI; it doesn't work well with IPs. Either publish a Request for Comments, or go to WP:RFPP to request semi-protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Robert McClenon,

I am happy that somebody finally replied here.

1. I consider it a conduct dispute, as the reverting nameless IPs use WP:OR, WP:Copyvio, WP:VER, WP:Onus, etc. against well researched content (it took me some hours to redact for consensus), without constructively engaging on Talk page or ad hominem.

2. My talk page was semi protected some weeks ago against such IPs, by User:Berean Hunter. It helped then.

3. Re: no WP:ANI - too late by now :), as this Noticeboard report was filed against me, in the meantime by yet another (?) IP. Please see their (his? as probably only 1 person is involved) arguments there: I do not claim to be objective. Zezen (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

3. I will thus try WP:RFC once the storm boils over, unless I am blocked first time on WP ;). Zezen (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

If you consider this a conduct dispute, as you say, then the use of an RFC will not be useful. Extended semi-protection is more in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
As to the content issue, whether there was racial segregation in Liberia, in my opinion, there was not. It was a caste system. Americo-Liberians, like native Liberians, were West Africans. There wasn't a racial distinction, but a social one. It is true that the status of Europeans (including Americans) and of Lebanese was peculiar, but that was also a caste system. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Semiprotection would be a form of gaming the system. Although I think the IP user should register, Zezen - not the IP - is the one editing disruptively here by edit-warring in material that is not present in the sources, poorly sourced and/or copyvio, after failing to gain talk page consensus for the new additions. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Based on the comments of User:Roscelese, who has been editing the article and is an experienced editor, it appears that this is both a content dispute and a conduct dispute, possibly with conduct issues on two sides. I would then instead recommend full protection of the article, which is a likely possible outcome of the edit-warring report anyway, to force User:Zezen and the IP to discuss. I am not optimistic that discussion on the talk page will be enough. I would also suggest a request for formal mediation in view of the depth of the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Who is introducing copyvio? Zezen, the IP, or both? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Zezen. The IP and I have both been removing Zezen's non-policy-compliant edits. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
In that case, I would advise User:Zezen to read the boomerang essay before accusing the IP of copyvio. I stand by my advice that full protection and formal mediation are probably in order, but mediation will fail if there are conduct issues. User:Zezen - Heed the advice of User:Roscelese if you do not want to be blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Despite Zezen's protestations, he is the party at fault here. He has violated 3RR, he keeps introducing OR, and he's the one who said his addition was "verbatim" from the sources. This is chiefly a content issue, although Zezen clearly has WP:IDHT problems, as you can see from the history of Political correctness and his contributions there (as well as other articles to which he has contributed).
Zezen, you can't create a "consensus version" by yourself. That's oxymoronic. 66.87.115.251 (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Robert McClenon,

Thank you for your general advice.

1. I do not claim' that the (reverting) IPs were infringing copyright.

I said above (please check) that they use the WP:OR, WP:Copyvio, WP:VER, WP:Onus, etc. policies one by one in their one-liners to revert the edits, without fully engaging on the Talk page by giving full arguments to my polite requests e.g. quotes from the alleged WP:Copyvio or why sources are not WP:VER. This can be checked on Talk's history where I invite all and sundry to do so.

2. Here I only sought advice of uninvolved experienced Wikipedians on what approach is best now and in future. Robert McClenon, you may be right that there was no segregation in Liberia (although the very word is used by scientific RS), and I will be happy to stand corrected. However, such content issues should be discussed on the article's Talk page only, while the alleged non-WP worthy activities by individual members (me included) in the appropriate places. This has not happened, so consensus can never be reached, which worries me.

3. As I do not want to be accused of such forum-hopping and inappropriate posting, I will cease contributing here, if you do not mind. Zezen (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

As usual, Zezen misrepresents the facts. I have commented on both the article's talk page and his talk page, but he replies by saying he doesn't reply to numbers (i.e., unregistered editors). Sorry, Zezen, but you can't have it both ways -- you can't refuse to discuss things with me and then complain that I don't discuss with you. 66.87.115.251 (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Content dispute, compounded by the conduct issue of User:Zezen viewing disagreements as conduct disputes. (Accusing another editor of conduct issues because they revert your edits citing policy reasons is a conduct issue.) I suggest full protection of the article and formal mediation. Also, starting a discussion and then saying that you don't want to continue it is a form of disruption (passive-aggressive editing), although we don't have a guideline or essay about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

4. Robert McClenon: by now I have also read the Boomarang esssay, as advised by you. Alas, it does not help me here, as it posits: 

If you are involved in a dispute with someone, try to discuss matters with the other person via their talk page. If they won't cooperate, seek dispute resolution.

- I am not involved in a dispute with "someone" and I cannot (and won't) discuss anything on changing IP's talk pages. I only try to reach consensus (preferably with named editors) and add sections afterwards. I care about WP's excellence thereby and not individual persons. 

In other cases a person might complain about another editor's actions in an incident...

I did not complain about any named account in an Admin board. The opposite is true: an IP complained about me. 

Try to avoid reporting someone for administrator intervention when you are angry; wait until you are calm...

As above, I do not report anybody, nor am I angry.

So unfortunately this essay does not apply here, unless I am mistaken about its purport.

5. Dear IP:

I will check the Talk Page for your changes now, then.

Good night to all. Zezen (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

5b. Dear User:66.87.115.251 - fact check: you have NOT commented anything on the article's Talk Page. Anybody can check this with Ctrl+F of 66.87.115.251 there or its history. Final goodbye here then. Zezen (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Word game. Just because that IP hasn't commented doesn't mean that the human behind the IPs hasn't commented. Will some uninvolved administrator please archive or hat this thread with a warning to User:Zezen? I thought that User:Zezen was asking a reasonable question, but it seems that he or she just wants to pretend that issues with unregistered editors are unreal. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Zezen - You are playing a word game in saying that you are not involved in a dispute with "someone". You are so. There is a human behind the IP addresses. (At least we assume good faith and assume that there is a human. If you really think that there is a bot behind the IP, there are procedures for reporting illegal bots.) I see that you don't like unregistered editors. You don't have to like them, but you have to be civil to them, and pretending that they aren't "someone" is an uncivil silent treatment. I am aware that it is difficult to engage in dialogue with unregistered editors on their user talk pages, but you can engage in dialogue with them on article talk pages or on your own registered user talk page. Stop gaming the system by pretending that a dispute with an unregistered editor isn't a dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

help! notability suggestion for adding in-depth third-party sources

Hello I made a draft for a page and 2 people have rejected it for the same reason .[[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pat_Larter]] I don't understand how it not an acceptable article. I believe the page for Pat Larter meets the Wikipedia guidelines for a notable person yet continue to be rejected - Any one with a knowledge of Australian Art and Art History would know of Pat Larter and can see that she was an important figure from the facts I have included and sources I have quoted. She has worldwide recognition too! I have met the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. I have been suggested by someone to add in-depth third-party sources which they don't explain how to do -I think my article is passable- can someone please help?!

Daniellehakim (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is here Draft:Pat Larter. Theroadislong (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
You need to demonstrate that she is notable, by providing citations about her from reputable independent published sources – if what you say above is true, this ought to be easy. But while it lacks them, the article in not acceptable. The reviewers aren't saying that she isn't notable, just that you haven't demonstrated her notability. Maproom (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The list of her exhibits is too long, and is not part of establishing her notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, the artist is notable, Daniellehakim, and with a bit more work, the article should be accepted. I agree with Robert McClenon that the level of detail is excessive. I recommend trimming the list of exibitions and publications to only the most significant, namely those which were reviewed in depth in reliable sources, and provide references. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

User Signature

Hi all, I want to know how I can create a customised signature as my current one is too generic. Thanks. Zyc1174 (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Zyc1174. Please read WP:Signatures and WP:Signature tutorial for full details of how to create a custom signature. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Zyc1174 (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I developed a tool to automatically assess the quality of Wikipedia articles. How can I present it on Wikipedia?

Hi,

I hope somebody can help me. I developed a tool, actually two tools, to help editors and reviewers to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles and to get an overview of the quality of an article quickly. It is an open science project. When I tried to create articles about the tools, they were deleted because of promotion. Is there another corner for developers or researchers where we can present our projects?

Thx!

Dst2015 (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand everything that the tools do, but I suspect that extreme care would need to be taken, and very thorough testing done before they were released to use on articles. Perhaps they could be discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) where there might be some experts. Creating an article about the tools was definitely not the right thing to do unless they have been extensively reviewed in independent publications. Dbfirs 22:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Dst2015, it seems to me that you are trying to create an article about the tool, whereas what you should be doing is telling editors about it and getting it tested. I can't think of any Wikipedia tools that there are articles (as opposed to help pages) about. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey Dst2015. I second everything said above. The idea lab is a good spot, but might also consider proposing at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) that they be added to Wikipedia:Tools. I must tell you though that the fact you attempted to create a mainspace article on the tools give me some misgivings about the tools. In order to develop tools that are truly tailored for use here would, I think, require an intimate understanding of how things work here – which is out of keeping with the attempt to create an article on them at Wikilyzer and Quality Assisted Editor (i.e., that indicates a essential misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works). Nevertheless, I took a look at the Wikilyzer/Quality Analyzer (by the way, you might want to fix the typo on the first page: IMPORVE → IMPROVE) and it does have some interesting attributes at first blush. But I was left puzzled by a few of the specifics I examined. For example, the authority tab says it measures five datapoints to reach its score on the article's "reputation". I don't really understand how the five pieces of data would show that (though I could not tell how they were weighted). Among the list of articles I generated for comparison, one of the highest ranked looked like it partially reached that high reputation score because it has many external links, and the article is a terrible one, with it having almost no sources, reliable or otherwise, but many external links – being to my mind an indication of its lack of quality in containing a promotional "linkfarm".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Thx for your answers and sry that I went the wrong way at the first place! @Fuhghettaboutit: The thing is the Quality Assisted Editor is just as good as the quality measure methods it is using. If you check other open science project like GreenWiki etc. the number of external links is always an indicator for the article quality. However there has not been done that much research about it. Therefore we created the Quality Analyzer that Wikipedians (experts, not me ;-) ) can create their own quality measrue methods and use it with the Quality Assisted Editor. Right now I'm just using what's already there, but as I said on the homepage of the [Quality Analyzer]: let's create a platform in order to build better and more meaningful quality measure methods. Thx again :-) Dst2015 (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
We tend not to encourage external links here because they often go to spam websites. In-line citations would be a better measure of article quality. Dbfirs 12:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Getting started with article

Hi, I just signed up with Wikipedia and I'd like to get started writing an article.. was hoping u could help me with some directionSteveK15 (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

HotCat

How can I add categories using HotCat? Eden's Apple (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Eden's Apple. have you enabled HotCat by ticking the box for it under Editing at the gadgets section of your preferences and then bypassed your cache? If you have, then the next step is to read Wikipedia:HotCat#How to use. If you have but are still having difficulties, please come back and tell us the specifics of the issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

can i save page but not publish ?

Hello, I am new to this and have a couple of questions. 1. Can I create the page but not publish it so I can continue working on it during a period of few days? 2. If I am creating the page for the Musician, can I not use the text from his website as approved by him? Do I need to provide a sort of written signed confirmation or call you? Many thanks for letting me know. Kind regards, Natalia Nataliakrylova07 (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi @Nataliakrylova07: Welcome to the Teahouse!
  • You can create a personal sandbox at User:Nataliakrylova07/Sandbox or a draft at Draft:MUSICIAN NAME (replace 'MUSICIAN NAME' with the name of the musician). You'll be able to edit freely until you're ready to move the page to the mainspace as a published article.
  • Wikipedia's text is released under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License. This license means that anyone can use our text, for any reason, as long as they attribute us. The copyright holder of the musician's website's text (which may or may not be the musician themselves) has to agree to release their text under that license, or a license that allows for similar or freer use. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more details, and WP:DONATEIMAGE for instructions on how to have someone agree to release their text under a compatible license. Now, I do tend to discourage copying material from official websites, even if we have permission. It's important that all our information be verified through a variety of reliable sources, so that we provide a neutral point of view and so that the subject is shown to be notable. Content from one's own website does tend to be a bit promotional. Wikipedia articles should be based off of what multiple reliable sources say about a subject (and preferably sources that are independent of the subject). What I recommend doing is writing the article from scratch and incorporating facts from variety of reliable sources (which should be done anyway). You could perhaps cite the musician's website as a source for some content, as long as WP:SELFSOURCE is followed. If you do this, make sure that text is not directly copied from the musician's website (or any other source for that matter).
Hope this helps. Let us know if you have any more questions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 13:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I see this as a two-part question. While both parts have been answered, I will try to elaborate a little on both parts, in order to address what appear to be two misconceptions. First, you ask whether you can save but not publish. The answer is not only that you may save but not publish, but that you are encouraged to save without publishing until you are finished with the draft. By "publish", I do not know whether you mean manually moving the draft into article space or submitting the draft for AFC review, but it doesn't matter. Perhaps there is a misconception that one should submit a draft for AFC review as soon as one has finished one round of edits to it, whether or not more edits are needed. That would explain the large number of AFC drafts that are obviously incomplete. Maybe their authors think that they are supposed to submit after each round of edits. Submission should only be done after the author thinks that the draft is finished. Submitting a draft for AFC review when it isn't finished wastes the time of the reviewers. It is common, and your question may explain that there may be a misconception that submission for AFC review is expected after each round of edits. It is only expected after the author thinks that the editing is finished. Second, you ask about using material from a musician's own web site. There clearly are misconceptions about using material from web sites. Many editors think that it is all right to use material from private web sites with permission from the web site owner. It usually is not, for at least two reasons. First, "permission" is not sufficient. The copyright must be released for general use under the CC-BY-SA license, not merely for use in Wikipedia. Owners of web sites very seldom are willing to release their web sites for general use. Second, even if the copyrighted material is released under a CC-BY-SA copyleft, it is likely too promotional for use in Wikipedia. It likely contains peacock language. So editors are strongly discouraged from using copyrighted web site material, even with permission that is seldom granted. Does that answer your questions? You are encouraged to save without publishing. You are strongly discouraged from using material on private web sites without rewriting it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Tips on how to improve editing

Hi guys

I am new here and I am fascinated by the amount of content, Wikipedia is so comprehensive.

I guess my question is, do you guys have tips for making the editing process better for us newbies?

Thanks a lot.

Louis

45.74.43.15 (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Louis, we have a lot of stuff to help new users or IPs. If you choose to create an account, you'll be able to create articles and do other things IPs can't do (although IPs csn create articles using WP:Articles for creation). I'm going to send you a welcome message to your talk with most of the links you will need. Plus, I have a user subpage here with tips for newbies. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 19:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

New page, unsure what happens now.

Hi folks I am new to Wiki and have just created the following page: John Herman Louis Burgess, actor

I am unsure as to what happens now. Do I wait for feedback? The page is clearly not yet "live" as the External Links section (I placed one item in it) is not visible and the references are not responsive when clicked on. Are You Tube links acceptable as references?

Thanks a lot

Harvey 109.157.182.193 (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Harvey, YouTube is typically not acceptable as a source, although it's sometimes OK as an external link. I don't know about it going live, as it sometimes takes as long as an hour (with my internet access) for the server to catch up and display the article. You will probably just have to wait. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello IP. I presume that you are Harveyburg but forgot to log in. The article is live, and is at John Burgess (actor). You appear to have attempted to manually add footnote references to the article. This isn't the way to do it. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners to learn how to do this correctly. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted to the previous version of the article, because Harveyburg's additions were insufficiently sourced, and I have since realised that they were a copyright violation of this page. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Query regarding Wikipedia governance and admin structure

Hello all,

I have been a registered user for a few months. Before that I enjoyed reading Wikipedia articles for some years and would occasionally poke around and make a change as an unregistered user. After giving it some thought, I decided to join and edit more regularly because I have been an editor and author off and on in real life for a bunch of different publications, and (as long as the arguments and drama are kept to a minimum) I find it enjoyable and relaxing to write and edit without time pressure.

I've now reached the point where I regularly get notifications to come and participate in discussion and/or vote on various aspects of Wikipedia administration, and other issues that do not directly have to do with editing an article. In an effort to be a good and productive community member, I've tried to vote and contribute where I can, but often when I click on some invite link and go to a page I see a discussion that looks to me like something straight out of a US Federal Government committee meeting, acronyms and all, and about as easy to follow as someone without a legal background tracking legislation. In fact, I would probably find the legal and legislative stuff easier to follow as I have worked in those areas in the past. Since I am relatively new to the "hierarchy" of Wikipedia and have not been deeply involved in watching its administrative evolution over the years, I am a bit baffled as to what in heck I am reading a lot of the time.

Is there a link or a subsite I can visit to learn about Wiki's organization and the general background to various issues? I do not want to ask stupid questions in the middle of people having a heated discussion about whether arbitrators should have 1000 edits or 5000 or be required to have clerked on some committee for umpty poo years, you get the drift.

Thank you for any help you can provide.TheBlinkster (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TheBlinkster. The project is vast, and there are a large number of pages that address various aspects of governance. I recommend that you read Wikipedia:User access levels, which describes the hierarchy of user rights, and follow the links. The Five Pillars is an essay on the foundational principles of the encyclopedia. Requests for Administratorship will give you the basics on what administrators do, and how they are selected. One candidate is being evaluated now. The Signpost is Wikipedia's newspaper which regularly covers governance issues - I suggest you subscribe. Feel free to ask followup questions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful response. The first three things you mention, I've already looked at — the hierarchy of user rights and the Five Pillars are very general (although I agree with them as a starting point) and WP:RFA seems to be in some state of flux with changes to requirements being considered. I'll try WP:SIGNPOST and see if that fills in some gaps. It may be that this is just one of these areas where it takes spending many years on Wikipedia to develop a comfort level. Thanks again. TheBlinkster (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Let me give you a few more suggestions, then, TheBlinkster. WP:AFDT is the shortcut to today's Articles for Deletion debates. Deciding whether articles "live or die" is an important aspect of governance. User talk: Jimbo Wales functions as a water cooler, and a place for people to blow off steam. If you have a high tolerance for conflict and drama, WP:ANI is the shortcut to the Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. I think of it as Wikipedia's night court. WP:AN is for more routine adminstrator's business. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I also find a lot that happens on Wikipedia is incomprehensible to me – Arbcom debates most of all. But I am perfectly comfortable with it. I just get on with the stuff that I know how to do. It's like using a software package: I know that Excel, and Perl, and my graphics editor, and even my domestic cooker, all have a huge number of features that I'll never understand; but it's not a problem. Maproom (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hear, hear! (Tnx Maproom). TheBlinkster: There is no shame in working with us grunts who just write articles or try to help newbies to not trip over themselves. I've tried to understand some of the legalese of the WP, and maybe in a couple of years I will. I've even poked my nose into a few organization issues, only to have it singed. So for now I'll do the menial work of creating articles, fixing some formatting and adding some refs. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 20:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you all. For now I am also probably more likely to go find an article to improve with some written or reorganized content or added citations, than to wade into the middle of any governance debates. (I hear enough arguing all day at the office.) However I have a small interest in governance systems on the web and many years ago did academic research into community governance on another website (said website is now a household word, but was never truly community-governed in the sense that Wiki, or even Reddit, is). I also feel that from a civics-minded perspective I should have some understanding of local government just as I do in my local community. Not saying anyone else has to feel the same way at all - one of the nice things about Wiki is we all get to freely choose roles and levels of involvement, which is an interesting governance concept right there. TheBlinkster (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Wikipedia is vast and beyond basic understanding of policy, there is really no need for you to become involved in the drama and politics. I have started participating at RfA simply because I feel the system needs more ordinary users and I will vote on the odd RfC, but otherwise I try to stay away. My only trip to wp:ANI was to accompany a poor newcomer who was being harassed. Happy Squirrel (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Out of interest, you can hear Jimbo talk about how the admin works here. The admin stuff starts just before the 4-minute mark if you want to jump straight to it. It's a bit old now, but interesting if you have a few minutes.--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Author deleting speedy deletion tag

Hi, I have recently placed a speedy deletion tag on an author's article. the author subsequently deleted the tag after leaving a message on the article talk page giving a reason why the Speedy deletion tag should not be present on the article. I was under the impression that regardless of the authors opinion it is only admin and such like users who can remove this speedy deletion tag. I have placed this on the teahouse questions board to ask for advise as to how to proceed with this matter. ThanksMr.Luther34--If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{SUBST:U|Mr.Luther34}} to your message. 14:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mr.Luther34. We have a standard series of escalating warning notices for speedy deletion tag removals by page creators. See {{subst:uw-speedy1}} and higher levels, as shown at WP:WARN. If the conduct continues after a final warning has been given, you can report the user to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. (On the other hand, if the user has added content/made changes that, if present when you first looked at it, would have rendered the speedy deletion tag invalid, don't reflexively add back the speedy tag even though once invoked it should not be removed by the page's creator.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
By the way, can you possibly tone down your signature? I find it really distracting (possibly partly because it invokes for me the orange bar of doom, that I'm primed to see). It also is required to but does not contain a link to any one of your user page, user talk page, or your contributions. Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The signature is like a user named something like "Dream of Horses". Eden's Apple (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit:Thanks for your help, I appreciate it. I hope the change on the signature is now to you satisfaction. it's my old signature I used to have. Thanks Again. --Mr.Luther34 15:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Mr.Luther34! That signature is great - it contains a necessary link and is still quite noticeable without making our eyes bleed:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
@Mr.Luther34: Err, sorry, let me dial that back slightly. The prior signature was really distracting for me. The old one you've switched back to is not for me. But now that we're focused on it, is the smiley emoji part of the signature itself? If so, it also has a problem under the signature guideline. Per WP:SIGIMAGE, "Images of any kind must not be used in signatures for the following reasons:..." If it's not part of it, then happy sailing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: Better???:) --Mr.Luther34-- 16:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Ha! Yes, sorry for the back and forth.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, Mr.Luther34, an article about a secondary school should never be tagged G11. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, articles about secondary schools are almost always kept. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit:No problem,sorry for delayed response. don't think I'm receiving replies as quick as I should. --Mr.Luther34-- 23:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
@Cullen: Hi, please could you tell me what school article you as referring to please. if I did it was obviously a error on my part.thanks. --Mr.Luther34-- 23:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Iris

I wanted to create a Template:Iris page that would function like the Template:Rose or Template:Citrus pages do and put aggregated information about this widely grown garden plant at the bottom of relevant pages. I discovered that Template:Iris exists but is hardly used because it is currently 'occupied' by a band. I'm assuming that changing the page's content from its current narrow focus to one that would be useful to a much broader range of pages and readers wouldn't be a problem. So if I were to edit the template to instead include information parallel to the rose template, would this all have to be entered manually (gasp!) or is there a way to bring it in automatically from categories or by some other mechanism? Thanks for any pointers on this.Alafarge (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse. First of all, I would tend to agree that the flower would be the most logical subject for a template with this name. However, that doesn't mean you should change the existing template. This template is used in a handful of articles and what you are suggesting would break these articles. Instead, I suggest you first create the template you suggest as Iris (plant) or something. Once it is ready, then perhaps suggest a move on the Iris template's talk page. About the mechanics of template creation, I can't really help you, but perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants would be a good place to find other interested editors. Best of luck! Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your point about not breaking the existing links and your suggestion to post about this in WikiProject Plants.Alafarge (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Alafarge. I see you moved the old template to Template:Iris (American band) and created a new template at Template:Iris. This was a good job, but I should point out that you left one loose end. All the pages which were previously showing the template about the American band were set to show {{Iris}} and were therefore showing info about the flower after your change. What was needed was to change all these references to {{Iris (American band)}}.
I've done this for you already (couple of minutes' work) so you don't need to do anything now. However this is something to bear in mind if you do a similar change in the future. You can check which pages "transclude" a template by clicking the "what links here" button on the left sidebar.
Cheers, --LukeSurl t c 23:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder, I'd spotted that and made a note to deal with it and then got sidetracked. Really appreciate that you took care of it.Alafarge (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Linking within an article (using bullets)

Hi, there. I was just wondering whether or not it is possible to link to specific points on an article, e.g. a bulleted list (similarly to the way sections are linked using [[#Section|]]). Thanks. Neve-selbert 07:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The information you need is at WP:ANCHOR. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Neve-selbert 03:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Why do people seem not so nice here?

I started to look on the talk pages on some articles, and people seem like they are angry and mean to each other, and they don't even seem to listen to each other with respect. They seem like they are fighting to get what they want into the article, and they even call each other names and insulting each other in quiet ways that are subtle. Why can this be ok here? What would I do if somebody was not acting good to me or if somebody doesn't listen or talk like a reasonable person? ElectraGrrl (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi ElectraGrrl. Well, yes, I agree discussions can sometimes get heated when people passionately disagree, particularly if the topic is controversial. It is also easier to misinterpret what people write - not everyone is perfect with their written communication. But generally I would say the nastiness is very much in the minority and there are plenty of well-meaning, positive initiatives to be involved with on Wikipedia. After all, it is 15 years of colaboration and discussion that has created Wikipedia in the first place. Enjoy! Sionk (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Minority? That's one huge understatement. I personally have never experienced this amount of aggressive harassment ever online before. What amazes me most, is the level of acceptance of such behavior within the community. Being (or becoming) a bully is definitely a huge, underlying, pervasive, meta element here. The community even condones victimizing the victim who's being harassed by using tactics like boomerrang. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 01:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's a huge minority. Perhaps the reason you think so is that you are involved in controversial new articles. I suppose newcomers who try to create new article without showing Wikipedia:Notability, do sometimes get impatient comments, especially if they ignore guidance that is offered. Dbfirs 11:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The subject was Art. Harassment isn't contained to certain articles. It spills out all over the place especially went it's accepted by the community. As for creating a new article, I wouldn't recommend anyone doing that... at least not before spending a minimum of a month in AfD. I came to Wikipedia specifically to write a few articles, however, the odds of them ending up in Deletionpedia is too great! Plus, it's no longer even a collaborative effort when it comes to writing an article. Articles now require hours and hours of diligent work by one editor, who when the article does, (maybe?) go live is easily tagged with multiple criticism and sent to AfD. Then those new editors are completely overwhelmed in that foreign environment. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 02:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
It's because we don't have enough people like you, ElectraGrrl. Despite Wikipedia's policies and common courtesy, people do sometimes get frustrated and they take things personally and all the usual reasons why people fight with one another.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your answers and your kind word to me. I hope i will be able to be a good influence here in the Wikiland. Well still isnt there some way to take action when some person is consistently being a bad participator in discussions and making it hard for everyone else to make it work well? Couldn't that make troubles in how the articles end up being too? ElectraGrrl (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Most editors here try to follow Wikipedia:Civility which is one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Occasionally, editors get carried away when they disagree, and some personal comments are intended in jest, though these should be placed in small print to indicate this. Occasionally we get trolls who deliberately try to incite other editors to reply less than civilly. This is not OK, and these "editors" often get banned. The best advice we can give is to always be civil, and to avoid those articles where there are heated arguments — they are very much a minority in Wikipedia. Dbfirs 13:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
If it is necessary, there are options to deal with persistent troublemakers. See the section "Dealing with incivility" in the Civility article that Dbfirs mentioned above.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
ElectraGrrl, I'm like you: I'm surprised and dismayed when I see editors attacking each other instead of getting on with improving the encyclopaedia. However, it happens, luckily not too often. As for what to do about it, I think the best response is just to be unfailingly polite, and not worry too much if others are not. To me, the Teahouse is a benchmark of behaviour: the regular editors here are helpful and courteous, though not afraid to speak clearly when that is necessary. I admire and respect them for that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I am afraid that some people are here just to make a nuisance of themselves. They see that wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, which gives them the chance to make difficulties, sometimes without even trying to create decent articles. Most such people eventually get blocked or banned because they go to far, but new ones are always appearing. However, I've found that this is the case with many websites and you will see a lot of it on social media such as Facebook. So we are not really so horrible by comparison. But it can be upsetting. Like the other users who've commented above, I find that the best solution is to ignore such people and their comments as far as you can. Deb (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Legobot

I have removed my name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service long time ago, still Legobot gives me updates of various RfCs. I am not much active on Wikipedia these days. What I should do so that Legobot will not send me messages anymore. Thanks.--Human3015TALK  18:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You may have to contact LegoBot's human overlord on their talk page to opt out. There may be some kind of technology error that's making you keep getting messages. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 19:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I have posted to User talk:Legoktm#Hi. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_430&oldid=1065748321"