Hello everyone, a submission of mine, currently available at [[draft:Shine.com]] has been declined. Please help with pointing out the mistakes, specific or general, and how to improve upon them with respect to modifications, additions, and removing content. Also, citations were mainly from the third party sources, there still may be notability issues, please help with that. I look forward to your helping hands.
Hello everyone, a submission of mine, currently available at [[draft:Shine.com]] has been declined. Please help with pointing out the mistakes, specific or general, and how to improve upon them with respect to modifications, additions, and removing content. Also, citations were mainly from the third party sources, there still may be notability issues, please help with that. I look forward to your helping hands.
I would like to declare that the article is an assignment from my employer.[[User:Amangoinplaces|Amangoinplaces]] ([[User talk:Amangoinplaces|talk]]) 05:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I would like to declare that the article is an assignment from my employer.[[User:Amangoinplaces|Amangoinplaces]] ([[User talk:Amangoinplaces|talk]]) 05:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Amangoinplaces}} Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have been asked by your employer to write an article, you need to review the conflict of interest policy located at [[WP:COI]] and the paid editing policy at [[WP:PAID]] before you edit further; reviewing the latter policy is '''required''' by Wikipedia's Terms of Use.
:You and your employer seem to have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a place to [[WP:PROMO|promote a business]] or even merely tell the world about a business. Wikipedia has no interest in what a business wishes to say about itself or how it wants to be portrayed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, Wikipedia is only interested in what third parties write about article subjects such as a business. [[WP:PRIMARY|Primary sources]] like press releases, interviews with company staff, routine business announcements, and brief mentions are not acceptable sources for establishing notability. Most of your sources seem to be routine announcements and or press releases. The notability guidelines for businesses are listed at [[WP:ORG]], and you should review those as well.
:As you work for the business, it will be difficult(though not impossible) for you to write in the [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] Wikipedia requires. In order for you to be successful in writing about your employer, you would need to forget everything you know about it and only write based on what third party, independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] state about it. As I stated, that does not include primary sources. If your business has not been sufficiently written about in independent sources, it will not be possible for their to be an article about it here at this time. Not every business merits an article here.
:If you have reviewed the notability guidelines and truly feel that your business does merit an article, you should not directly create the page yourself, instead submitting a draft for review through [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]], where it can be reviewed by an independent editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. Again, though, if you cannot find proper sources, you should wait for your business to become sufficiently notable(as Wikipedia defines it) and allow others who notice it to write about it. If you just want to tell the world about your business, you should use social media. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 08:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm keen to rectify this and provide high-level, factual information. Reading the guidance she would be considered a notable person- there are also sufficient high quality external sources. I've also reviewed the conflict of interest guidance, I don't want to create something without first asking if this is something one of you kind wiki editors would be able to support and/or would like to create? I can supply factual information and sources.
Below is some factual information and I have sources to support the statements. It would be great if someone at wikipedia would help? If not, I will explore creating a draft and take feedback to refine from the wiki community.
Suggested copy:
proposed text for article
Evelyn Bourke (businesswoman)
[Intro]
Evelyn Bourke (born 31 January 1965) is an Irish businesswoman who has been the Group Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Bupa since 25 July 2016.
[Early life and education]
Bourke grew up in Tipperary , Ireland , on a dairy farm, and is the eldest of six. She was one of the first two women in Ireland to qualify as an actuary.[1]
[Career]
Bourke began her career with New Ireland Assurance as a trainee actuary between 1982-1986, before working in various management roles at the Bank of Ireland during 1986-1991.[2]
She then worked as principal at Tillinghast Towers Perrin for over 10 years, before joining Nascent Group, (a start-up backed by St James’s Place ) as Finance Director between July 2001-December 2002. Bourke worked as a consultant advising on strategy and improving financial performance through 2002 and 2003.[3]
In April 2004, Bourke was appointed as Chief Executive Officer of Chase de Vere , responsible leading it through its sale process.
Between April 2005-April 2009, Bourke worked at Standard Life Aberdeen , firstly as Director of Strategy and Planning and Group Actuarial Director, before then becoming Finance Director of Standard Life UK. During this time she also served as a Standard Life Assurance board member.
Bourke became Chief Financial Officer of Friends Provident in May 2009, and then following the company’s acquisition by Resolution Limited in November 2009, spent a year as Executive Director responsible for Finance and Governance.[4]
In August 2011, she was appointed Friends Life UK’s Chief Commercial Officer and member of the board. She then joined Bupa as Chief Financial Officer in September 2012 .[5][6][7][8]
After almost four years as Bupa’s Chief Financial Officer, Bourke became Bupa’s Acting Group CEO on 4 April 2016, before being appointed permanent Group CEO on 25 July 2016.[9]
On becoming Bupa’s Group CEO, Bourke established a new strategy focusing the organisation on three core strategic pillars, delivering for its customers, employees loving working at Bupa and strong and sustainable performance.[10]
As part of this strategy, the company has expanded into new markets and related business areas, and prioritised digital as a key strategic priority. This includes the acquisition of the health insurer Care Plus in Brazil in December 2016 and the significant expansion of the UK Bupa dental business with the acquisition of Oasis Dental Care announced in November 2016. Bupa also announced its partnership with HealthTap as part of its digital strategy. [11][12]
In January 2018 Bourke was one of 50 senior executives to accompany British Prime Minister Theresa May on a business delegation to China to strengthen UK-China relations. [13]
Bourke holds an MBA from London Business School [14] and has also served as a non-executive director on a number of boards, including The Children’s Mutual , Opportunity Now and IFG Group plc .
[Personal life]
Bourke married Seamus Creedon in December 2015, her partner of over 20 years, in Bromley, London.
Andrewbyron: you say "there are also sufficient high quality external sources" to establish that she is notable. I hope you will cite some of them in the draft. I failed to find any. I see that another editor has cited three sources in the draft; one (the FT) I can't assess as it's behind a paywall, but the other two don't help much with notability, The Independent says little, and Reuters almost nothing about her. Maproom (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(:) Thanks @Maproom: appreciate you helping out! I've gone through and added in the draft and above to support. I appreciate the FT.com is behind a paywall but still listed as it is such a high quality publication. I notice on some CEO exec profiles that they also list their company websites - is this something you'd recommend? There's lots of Bupa corporate sources I could link to like our annual report etc....
Andrewbyron (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You still need to cite sources to reliable independent sources with significant discussion to establish that the subject is notable. If no-one does that, the draft will not be accepted as an article. I see you have added numerous references which are not independent, or which lack much discussion of the subject. This is mildly counterproductive: a cynical reviewer may take the view that you have added all those references as a smokescreen, to conceal your failure to find good references that do establish notability. Such smokescreens don't work. In assessing notability, references are judged on quality, not quantity. Incidentally – I did not intend to criticise the FT source. It's just that while I can't see what the article says, I can't tell whether it has any significant discussion of Bourke. Maproom (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A page I created was deleted within hours of my posting it and there appears to be no way to contest the deletion. I'm confused because when I see that a page I created months ago has also been nominated for speedy deletion, yet it remains up, while the more recent one was deleted almost immediately and I apparently have no recourse.
The policy cited was notability and User:Deb who is responsible for the deletion had a very subjective interpretation of the policy. It was suggested that the page sounded promotional, which I think is often a danger when profiling a living subject. I maintain that my tone was neutral, but it's hard to convey what's notable about someone without listing their accomplishments, which can't help but sound like you're promoting them. In this case, every thing I said had been reported by major media sources which I cited assiduously.
JEric Miller (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JEric Miller: n Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it is then at some point(often, but not always, relatively soon) evaluated by an administrator. If the administrator feels the criterion or criteria given are valid, the page can be deleted without delay or discussion. The speedy deletion tag provides a means to contest it, but if you are unable to before the page is deleted, you can then visit WP:DRV, Deletion Review, to make your case there. That is the way to contest a speedy deletion after the fact. I can't see the page to know if it was correct(though admins can and one will likely comment here), at least two people thought the given criteria were valid. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would clarify that the speedy deletion criteria are meant as instant-fail criteria that would be disputed by very few and where the community has decided the judgement of administrators is sufficient. You may want to read more about speedy deletions at WP:CSD. If a page does not meet the speedy deletion criteria, it would then be brought to a full deletion discussion for the community to comment on. 331dot (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer; I can't tell if it's auto-generated, as so much on this site is. I have read all relevant policies and pages and I don't like being continually re-routed to them. You mention RHaworth, a name I did not see mentioned in connection with the deletion. Is that an administrator? I'm glad to know that two people, at least, made the decision, though I would prefer to be able to communicate with them directly, which the system seems set up to defeat. This all feels very one-sided and unfair, and reading some of the other communications on this page I see an attitude from administrators that is frankly ugly and makes me regret the significant effort I've put into actively participating in Wikipedia. It's not terribly helpful to discuss all of these policies in general without being able to examine the actions taken in the specific case at hand, and I have trouble recognizing how a "full deletion discussion for the community to comment on" is achieved in a matter of hours. The only comment I'm privy to is by User:Deb and I'm not clear on whether she is an administrator or who ultimately made the decision.
@JEric Miller:I assure you I wrote the above. I can only offer general answers as I am not an administrator with access to the specific information. You posted on Deb's user page, which is close to the correct place(The user talk page) to communicate with someone. As Deb could theoretically be anywhere in the world, they may not have seen your message yet. RHaworth is the administrator who actually performed the deletion(If you click the article title on your user talk page it tells you). As I indicated, speedy deletions may occur without delay, even immediately as long as an administrator determines the criteria is valid. You can formally contest the speedy deletion at the place I indicated. I mentioned full discussion as what happens in non-speedy deletion cases only, there was no discussion in this case and one is not required. I'm sorry you have not had a good experience, but in my time on this page I have found the people here helpful and sincere. 331dot (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification; my observation about some of the snarky-sounding comments I saw made in response to other cases was not referring to your answers, which have been helpful. I posted where I did in regard to User:Deb because I clicked on a link that said "This is not my talk page; to communicate with me click here" which did not give me a chance to communicate with her but instead routed me to a policy page, from which I am supposed to recognize the veracity of her actions. It's a kind of "talk to the hand" sort of position.
And I'm afraid I'm still not getting it. The article title on my talk page is not an active link and it not clickable as far as I can determine. I tried clicking on the active link present in your mention of RHaworth, which takes me to his page but I don't see how to communicate with him from there. BTW, you said you can't see the article so how were you able to determine that he is the administrator who deleted it?
(edit conflict)When I clicked the link you speak of, it took me to User talk:Deb, their user talk page. It does have essentially a FAQ on it, but it is the proper place to communicate with them and is not a formal policy page. If you click the "New section" tab, it will open up an edit window for you. If you ended up at a different page, please link to it. 331dot (talk)
When you get to RHaworth's user page, click the "Talk" tab at the top left of the page, this will take you to their user talk page. I will also link there directly, User talk:RHaworth. If you click D.King Gallery it will show you who deleted the page.331dot (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The page I was talking about was Deb's user page, which I didn't recognize as such; thanks for clearing that up. The page she took issue with was about Averell Smith. I did not, in fact, realize that the D. King Gallery page had been deleted. On my talk page it says it has been nominated for speedy deletion, not that it already has been deleted, and there is a link for me to contest the deletion. Since both pages have been deleted, it seems inconsistent that I can simply contest the deletion of one, but must follow the more involved process you cited for the other. I appreciate the direct link to RHaworth, but since he is the one who deleted the D. King Gallery article (which I am not contesting), it unfortunately doesn't help. There is no such available information for the Averell Smith page I labored over, since it was never moved or deleted. Despite all the hard work I put into it, it apparently never existed, except for Deb, who didn't like it and decided no one else should get to choose whether or not they like it either. Is Deb an administrator? I assume so, since no one else has been presented as responsible for the deletion, but how do I identify people as administrators?JEric Miller (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deb deleted the page as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I have read the deleted page. Although I can see that it may be promotional, I am very surprised to see it described as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I hope that Deb explains this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I too have read the deleted article, JEric Miller, and I agree with Deb and must disagree with Hoary. The deleted article began: "Averell Smith, commonly called by his nickname, 'Ace,' is a well-known political advisor and public relations consultant who has been a key figure in many winning campaigns, primarily for Democratic Party candidates and initiatives, though he has done work for other party candidates as well. He is particularly recognized for the effectiveness of his opposition research, being dubbed 'Doctor Death' by opponents of his clients, but his work has also encompassed a variety of campaign strategies that have helped produce victories for his clients, both independently and as part of the consulting firm SCN, which he founded in 1997 with partners Sean Clegg and Dan Newman." In my eyes, this is overtly promotional wording, and that promotional tone infuses the entire deleted article, which closes with promotional language about his upcoming baseball book. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotionalism and we insist that our articles comply with the neutral point of view. So, I think that Deb's deletion was justified. All that being said, I believe that Ace Smith is notable, and that Wikipedia ought to have a truly neutral article about him. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've also read the deleted article, and agree with the deletion and firmly disagree with Hoary. That article was clearly a promotional piece about how very good that individual is at their job. I would've also G11'd it without a moment's hesitation. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JEric Miller: The fact that Deb deleted the article(sorry I misunderstood which) would mean that they are an administrator, as only admins can delete pages. Admins usually state they are such on their user page, but if they don't you can check a username against WP:ADMINLIST to see if they are one. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
•Hi JEric Miller. You’re frustrated and that’s understandable, but I don’t think the post you left at User talk:Deb#7 March 2018 is going to help resolve this situation. Deb, like all administrators, have been selected by the WP:COMMUNITY the task of trying to keep the Wikipedia up to standard. Sometimes, this may mean deleting articles or removing content which is not up to Wikipedia’s standards. These are not always popular decisions to make, but they are necessary, so it’s a good idea to try and WP:AGF when discussing them instead of immediately implying inappropriate behavior. Administrators are chosen because the community feels they can be trusted to act in the best interest of Wikipedia. Mistakes are made by administrators, but there are ways to resolve them without posting “What gives you the right?” Types of messages on their user talk page. There is no “my page” on Wikipedia; editors may create/edit articles, but there are no ownership rights associated with any of that per WP:OWN. This means that any page can be tagged/nominated for deletion by any editor at any time. A deleted article can be restored; so, if the community determines that a mistake was made, it will be rectified. However, it’s best to wait until Deb responds before automatically assuming a mistake was made. Deb did post a couple of notifications on your user talk, so I don’t see any reason to believe she won’t clarify things further. FWIW, I’m not an admin, so I cannot see what was deleted; three admins, however, have looked at the article and the assessment of two of them was that Deb acted as the community wants her to act. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to JEric's comments on my talk page. I can only reiterate that the page I deleted was promotional.Deb (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I too harrumphed when I read, in the very first sentence, that Smith is "well-known" (a term that's redundant even when accurate) and that he "has been a key figure". Both indeed smack of promotion. I didn't click on the related link, because it was to somewhere behind the Great Wall of Murdoch. Instead, I persevered. He is particularly recognized for the effectiveness of his opposition research, being dubbed “Doctor Death” by opponents of his clients, [...]. Again, not encouraging. However, this time there was a reference that I could look at: “Clinton sends her ’stopper’ to Texas” (San Francisco Chronicle). Yes, this is indeed from that article, which also provides evidence for "Ace" and more. I mean, if we are to believe the SF Chronicle, Smith really is recognized for the effectiveness of his opposition research, blah blah. Now, the Chronicle is not an encyclopedia; and an encyclopedia article should perhaps be more staid than even a broadsheet. But I'm not aware that insufficient staidness implies promotionalism. ¶ The other specific mentioned above is the claim by Cullen328 (who, interestingly, concedes that Smith merits an article) that the article ends with promotional language about [Smith's] upcoming baseball book. Sounds bad! So let's take a look. I quote, complete and verbatim: April 2018 saw the release of Smith’s first book, The Pitcher and the Dictator: Satchel Paige’s Unlikely Season in the Dominican Republic, which details the true story of Paige and his teammates time in the Dominican Republic. The first oddity here is that "April 2018 [future] saw [past]" anything whatever. I wondered if "2018" might have been a typo for "2017" or earlier. Here is the book at some online retailer. Publication date, we're told, is: "April 1, 2018". The book has got one review. This review really does sound promotional, but this shouldn't condemn the product; rather, what's interesting is that it's by somebody who's made a "Verified Purchase". Also, that Amazon says the book "Ships when available in 1-2 days" (note days, not weeks). Well, I happen not to like this (well established) use of the verb see, and an apostrophe has gone missing; but if "April" were cut, I don't see any significant problem; and I don't see anything promotional -- let alone unambiguously promotional, which is the claim. (Moreover, this book is put out not by blurb.com or similar but instead by an actual university press, and a good one, too.) ¶ And yes, there are other problems with the article as well. However, I still fail to see how the faithful summarizing of what's written in [what purports to be] a news article within a pretty decent US broadsheet, etc etc, is promotional, let alone how it is unambiguously so. ¶ And so I stand by my first comment. I do see unambiguous advertising or promotion from time to time (and I'd see it very much more often if I patrolled new pages); when I do, BLAMMO! I do not see it here. -- Hoary (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, darn it! Internet connection went down while I was in the middle of replying. Okay, I looked at it again and I still find the wording promotional and I think Cullen has said it all. I'd just note that (besides the fact that he created it at "Averell smith", which seems odd as he's clearly not illiterate), JEric added the notability tag himself prior to accusing me of deleting an article on someone who was notable! I don't dispute the notability, but I have no doubt that the article was created at this present moment in order to advertise the new book, and I'm a a little suspicious that there could be a COI ("we authors, ma'am"). There is nothing to stop JEric from recreating the article in NPOV language, and he didn't even ask me to userfy it prior to going off on one. Deb (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have no doubt that the article was created at this present moment in order to advertise the new book? No doubt? What ever happened to WP:AGF? As for me, I doubt it considerably. If it were created in order to advertise the new book, then (i) why does it emphasize Smith's experience and prowess as a political operative (hardly one of the more conventionally endearing careers), and (ii) why does it say nothing, zero, squat about Smith's experience or prowess as a biographer, historian, scholar/writer on issues of race and/or the Dominican Republic, or baseball commentator? Well, conceivably because it's stunningly incompetent as a book advert; but I find this hard to believe considering that the editor has (unlike so many other WP editors) got the knack of finding decent sources, citing them, etc etc. ¶ "There is nothing", you say, "to stop JEric from recreating the article in NPOV language". Two points. First, this implies that the previous draft was in "point-of-view language", which you have hardly shown. Secondly, there is something: you have "deleted" it. Of course it isn't really deleted, and several people hereabouts can still read it; however, JEric cannot. ¶ Considering that you "don't dispute the notability" of the biographee, how about this: "undelete it", make it available at Draft:Averell Smith, and on its talk page tell JEric just what the problems are. (If there are many, just identify and comment on a handful of the most egregious.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! At this point, I am guessing that this Teahouse discussion is longer, and has taken editors more time, than creating and deleting the original article in question. As already noted, the subject of the disputed article is probably notable. How about the creator try again, and the rest of us can finish our morning cup of coffee (or whatever beverage is appropriate in the time zones you are in). David notMD (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Better. I deleted all mention of the book, as not even published yet! Wait for published reviews. Toned down laudatory wording. Needs citations. David notMD (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone, let me say thanks for weighing in and I’m glad to participate in this discussion, which is what I felt was missing when my article was summarily dismissed. My attempt to maintain a neutral voice may have been defeated by the overwhelmingly positive tone of the sources I was referencing. It is hard to discuss what is notable about someone without sounding like you are praising them. Would I be promoting Hilary Clinton if I said that she is a former Senator, Secretary of State, and First Lady of the United States of America? It is as Hoary said: the language I used directly reflected that of the (major media) sources I cited. Deb, if you had provided the specific instances of language that you’ve now cited, I would have been happy to address those; in fact I don’t disagree with you. I felt hamstrung by the neutrality requirement to not put my own spin on it; the problem was that the newspaper coverage of Smith was not terribly neutral. Hoary made this case for me better than I could have myself; if you took the time to read the cited sources, I think you’d see what both of us were talking about. I’d be happy to re-do the page if that was an option but as Hoary pointed out, you suggested that I do so even though your action had prevented me from doing it. That’s not a terribly helpful approach, and it bears out a lot of negative things I’ve read about the treatment of new editors. It also wasn’t clear to me how to contest the deletion. I don’t agree with you and Cullen about the language I used in connection with the book, which consisted of the book’s title, publisher, and a very brief summary of its subject. I said nothing remotely positive or negative about the book, said nothing at all about it beyond the fact that it exists. If the issue is the publication date, then I wish you had just said so, because I was unsure how to approach that. The official publication date is still a few weeks away, but it is apparently already available to purchase (I will also make note that I in no way cited or steered readers towards a place where they could purchase it). I thought it appropriate to include this mention of the book since it is the subject’s first book and it is being issued from a legitimate, recognized publisher, but if the date is the issue then please confirm that. While I think the general consensus that the language in the overall page appears biased (which I’m happy to change), the emphasis by several people on the section about the “language” in the section of the book is perplexing. The only descriptive words I use are “first” (describing the book) and “true” (describing the story it tells). How can stating the title of a book or its publisher be considered “laudatory” as David notMD says? I find that characterization bizarre. In terms of a COI, I am not Averell Smith, don’t know him and have never met him. I’m not interested in promoting him and, given that his clients are some of the most famous and powerful people in the world, I seriously doubt that he needs to advertise on Wikipedia. I don’t really have an opinion about him or his work one way or the other but I would argue that he is a significant public figure. As for my initial response to your deleting the page, like I pointed out to 331dot earlier, the message from you on my talk page was not consistent with the notification I got about another page: you were not identified clearly to me as an administrator nor as the person who was taking issue with the page (apparently you’re both). As I’ve said, it would’ve been helpful if you could have given specific examples; at the very least you could’ve identified WHICH policy was the issue, rather than referring me to an FAQ laundry list of potential problems. I honestly thought initially that notability was the issue and I’m confused by your saying I “created the notability tag” myself. Forgive my inexperience, but I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Likewise, I noticed the mistake in the article’s title too late and couldn’t figure out how to fix it. I am new to participating in Wikipedia and—though in reading the room, I doubt this will gain much sympathy—I find the bureaucracy of it overwhelming. I find long-form IRS forms ridiculously simple by comparison. Though I wish this process had gone a little differently, I am sincerely glad for the feedback, much of which I find entirely valid and which I think will improve the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JEric Miller (talk • contribs) 00:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, User:JEric Miller. It's worth noting that I only saw your above statement by chance because, apart from not signing it, you didn't take the necessary steps to bring it to my attention - luckily, I happened to check back. I had asked you about a COI in my reply to you on my Talk page a couple of days ago but you didn't respond to that. Fine, I'm happy to take your word, and I'm sorry I misjudged you in that respect. Articles that suddenly spring up shortly before a new book comes out and are in promotional language are typically created by associates of the author. When you have been here a bit longer, you'll start to see the tell-tale signs. Take a look at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as spam any day and you'll probably see a few examples. Administrators are here to keep the encyclopedia clean, not to enter into long detailed arguments with their creators except when they are asked straight questions. In response to your other question above, you did create the article with a notability tag already on it - I guess because you copied from another article that had that tag on it. The warnings, signed with my name, that I gave you on your page after deleting it referred you to policy pages that would have helped you understand, but you chose instead to start berating me for taking the standard course of action. Another misconception you seem to have is that you could not re-do the page because "your action had prevented me from doing it." You could have recreated the page at any time as long as you abided by the NPOV rule. There is nothing to stop anyone creating an article under any new title, regardless of whether it has previously been deleted, as long as the page is not protected. The work David notMD has done on your draft is outstanding and worthy of your thanks. I can assure you that not many people would have gone to that much trouble to help you bring it up to standard. I look forward to seeing you make some good contributions in the future, and hope never to find myself deleting any of your other contributions. Deb (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted all mention of the book because is too soon. Separately, I toned down laudatory and imprecise language in an attempt to save you from another deletion. If you are unhappy with what I did, revert it. And while you are at it, also revert the help Hoary - a very experienced editor - provided. David notMD (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Might Wikipedia perhaps benefit from trying harder to be patient with the minor mistakes of new editors?Come on, Deb, you're an administrator; being berated from time to time goes with the job. Plus you were hardly "berated". Also, while JEric Miller could indeed have re-created the article either from scratch or from a copy on his own computer, your deletion of it would otherwise have been a major hindrance -- and an unnecessary one, given the ease of moving it either to draft space (as I did) or to a sandbox in his userspace. You say Articles that suddenly spring up shortly before a new book comes out and are in promotional language are typically created by associates of the author. This may indeed be true. But it was unlikely to apply here, given that (i) the book appears to be about baseball and a tyrant's self-aggrandisement or whatever, whereas (ii) the rest of the deleted article didn't even hint at the biographee's likely proficiency to write about either area. Still, let's suppose for a moment that the article was indeed promotional. This is no reason for speedy deletion.Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G11 says (in full, and without any extra emphasis added by me):
This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. However, "promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.
If you still maintain that the draft was exclusively promotional; well, I still maintain that it was not. By contrast, here [sorry, non-admins won't be able to see this] is an example of an exclusively promotional non-article about a (seemingly insignificant) future event, a non-article rightly zapped by Anthony Appleyard. And as long as we're discussing the future, David notMD and others have, on balance, improved the draft; but in places I believe they've been overzealous. David removed the minor paragraph about the book. (Contrary to my earlier inference, this book hasn't yet been published. So I made a mistake, and not for the first time.) David's edit summary: "Removed section. Wait until the book is actually published and there has been a published review in a reputable source, to use as a citation". If I understand the implications right, this surprises me. I have never heard that a review is needed as evidence that a book has been published. I see no reason why anything beyond an OCLC record (demonstrating possession by one or more libraries) would ever be required. Not a crystal ball tells gung-ho, would-be article creators that no they mustn't create articles about United States presidential election, 2032 and very much else. It certainly doesn't suggest any welcome for what are essentially product announcements even within larger articles, but I'd say that a very brief description of the impending publication of this book, backed up with a note (my preference) or reference to this University of Nebraska Press page, wouldn't violate what's written. (No, of course a book's publisher should not normally be taken as a "reliable source" for the book. But here it wouldn't be to back any claim that the book is original, readable, authoritative, etc; it would merely show that the book is on the verge of publication.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am a (non-notable) scientist who has two history books published. I also used to be a Boston street performer. If my science career was sufficient to be notable, I would not expect my present and past hobbies to be in the article. Something about early life and education, yes. About significant involvement in philanthropic activity, yes. The book is not about Ace's profession. To get out of draft and not get deleted (again) this article needs to be a decent stub. Which means A) citations, and B) stay on topic. Any padding adds risk. David notMD (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why was he allowed no time to contest a speedy deletion, in the first place. There’s no doubt that this speedy nomination rule is oft times abused. Especially by Admins who have vast experience and knowledge of the far ranging policies that now exist. Who specialize in article assessment, and who obviously start out with pre-written templates containing all the reasons that could bring about a delete and then tailoring them to fit. What happened to contribute and fix it. It takes months to build a house but only a day to pull it down. At the point before a speedy delete some account of the writers’ past record should be taken into account. A valued judgment on whether or not the article is malicious in some way could be made. Good Faith could be assumed. Some slack could be meted out. Time could be given to fix it. Speedy should mean 24 hours or even a week, not 24 minutes. Admin’s forget that when newbies are faced with scatter gun, Thor hammer type judgements, and speedy deletes they are faced with a mountain of policy to wade through before a response can be made; and then the time has to be put in to fix the article. I for one am very much against issuing a warning, and then deleting in a twinkle. Stop, your dead! I thought the project wants Editors, why crush them and lose them. BeckenhamBear (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, BeckenhamBear, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" is rightly one of several reasons for speedy deletion. The deletion should come as quickly as possible. When I see unambiguous advertising or promotion, I delete it, instantly. ¶ Now, on occasion I've seen evidence of this or that dreadful failing, instantly deleted the article ... and then had it pointed out to me that I'd misread/misunderstood this or that. So I'd been wrong. I think and hope that at this point I've always admitted that I'd been wrong, and maybe even apologized for the trouble caused. I'm still waiting for Deb either (A) to say how this draft was among "pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION", or (B) to admit that he or she made a mistake. -- Hoary (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
David notMD, if your science career is notable, you're welcome to get an article (as long as it conforms to en:WP policies). And if your history books are non-trivial (as evidenced in any of a number of ways, including but not limited to publication by a university press), then mention of them within the article about you is welcome too. Why should it not be? Where do you find these policies that you cite? ¶ Of course, Wikipedia is bristling with policies. Everything is hugely more complex now than it was in, say, back in the day when Deb became an admin. So I decided to check this need to "stay on topic" by examining the result of one of the most stringent tests of biographical significance: a biographical article recently promoted to "featured" status. It's Anne Hathaway, promoted in January. The opening paragraph of this article says that Hathaway is an "American actress and singer" who's been paid lots of money, received lots of awards for acting, and has been in films that have made lots of money. The article has a section, "Personal life and other work", that might instead be titled "Stuff about her that has little or nothing to do with the reasons why she merits an article". Not only did this stuff get through the (excruciatingly nit-picking) nomination process, it doesn't seem even to be mentioned there. Did this nomination process improperly overlook something, David? Or are the requirements for brand new articles more stringent than those for featured articles? Or is this "need" just something that you imagine? -- Hoary (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What should I do to submit an article translated from Chinese Wiki?
I was trying to translate the article "zh:理想人生" from Chinese Wiki and submit it as "Ideal Life (album)", and the draft was declined because "multiple sentences are not supported and verified by the (very little) sources that you provided. Hence, those facts may be invalid. Do add-in more sources." However, the page on Chinese Wiki doesn't seem to have the sources I need so I can do nothing to follow the request. What should I do?
Linus Xu (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest:
a) Searching for sources for the unsourced material and adding them yourself – note that sources do not have to be in English, though that is preferred if there is a choice;
b) Adding 'citation needed' to material for which you think sources should be findable by others even though you have failed;
c) Removing material for which you cannot find a source and for which you think it unlikely that others will succeed.
Thank you anyway, but currently the issue is that the best source I can find is the corresponding page on Chinese Wiki (zh:理想人生), which don't have the source I need. I have included all the sources in it, but it doesn't seem to work.
(ec) The problem is Wikipedia is not (however ridiculos it may appear) a source reliable enough for Wikipedia. It's partly because Wikipedia is written by volunteers and verified by volunteers, so information in Wikipedia may be incomplete or even false, and stay for long time unnoticed. That's why we always need external sources. Otherwise we may well fall into a circle of false sources, such as en-wiki article references zh-wiki, while zh page references en as a source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability section, linked as WP:CIRCULAR.
Apart from the above, what is considered notable in one Wikipedia may not reach the treshold in another one. Wikipedias in different languages have their own rules, discussed and fixed by their respective communities. Some person, song, building or event famous in Greece may remain unnoticed in Russia, so ru-wiki may refuse duplicating information from el-wiki. Similary, to put a page about a Chinese song, singer or record in en-wiki you need to establish its importance for English-speaking readers by English-language sources. Even a nation-wide fame in China may not suffice if the subject is actually unknown in English-speaking parts of the world...
Well, it may be a bit ridiculous, but every album by this singer but the one I'm going to add (see Limits, Missing, The Inner Me, and Lala Hsu) has been added, and the editors simply skipped this one.
@Linus Xu: I'm sorry, but I know nothing about that specific artist or her albums. I have no idea whether (and why) her albums should, or should not, be mentioned in Wikipedia, and I'm not going to discuss it. I just tried to answer your question about the possible meaning of the message given along the draft submit decline. And the answer is simply: each article should be sourced on its own, and sources should establish notability of the subject, as described in our policies and guidelines. What concerns the presence of some, but not all albums: this may result from a limited knowledge of people who described those albums; or a limited time they volunteered to describe them. Possibly they were desribed by different editors – none of them would be responsibile for keeping data complete. Anyway, for some guidance about arguments along the line "every album but this one", please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. --CiaPan (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have solved the problem.
It seems that using the translating feature can sort of deal with the problem, but further edits may still be needed.
Is it OK to re-use Wikipedia content with attribution?
I'm putting together a demo of a semantic knowledge base on a particular set of topics such as cognitive science. This is for a non-profit and I'm donating my time because the subject is so interesting. I'm looking at a bunch of different possible tools but one is called Semantic MediaWiki. It's an add-on to the same Mediawiki technology that powers Wikipedia. I like it over some expensive commercial tools because it's simple but powerful and I already know how to edit Wikipedia pages. I want to put together a demo, this is strictly internal just a few people will see it and what we are building will be completely free to the public. Kind of like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy but different topics and more high tech. Anyway, I would like to copy a bunch of pages from Wikipedia into my Sandbox at Semantic Mediawiki, just to give people a quick idea of what it would look llike and to have some actual content in it. I was wondering, is that considered kosher? I've seen lots of sites that I know regularly steal wikipedia content. It was funny once I was on a site and thinking "I really like the way this guy writes" and then I remembered no wonder, I wrote it but on a Wikipedia page. Sorry, I digress, I was wondering is this OK and is there some boilerplate text I should use? I could just have a link to the Wikipedia page, and if we go this route that is probably what I would do eventually but I think it might be easier for the sake of the first demo to just copy some pages (not a lot, 10-20) from Wikipedia. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MadScientistX11: Yes, it is OK to reuse text with attribution. See WP:REUSE. Not all images are freely licensed, so if you are looking to reuse an image you will need to check the license for the ones you want to reuse. RudolfRed (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will check any images. These are all science and philosophy topics so I doubt there would be copyrighted images but I remember getting notifications about this when I even put some articles with pictures into my Sandbox so I'll definitely check for that. I may just remove images just to make sure because this is all just for a quick proof of concept. Thanks very much for the help. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MRD2014: although "copyrighted–not copyrighted" is a good heuristics, it's not actually correct. All of Wikipedia's text, and some (most) images are copyrighted. The copyright holders (you and me) just have chosen to waive some of their rights. CC-BY-SA and other free licenses are copyrighted but with only "some rights reserved", enough to allow re-use of any kind, in contrast to "all rights reserved".Fair-use images have all rights reserved, or at least enough to prohibit some uses. Only public domain content is not copyrighted. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Biased article
Hi. Spotted a highly biased article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News. I don't have the time or skills to become an editor, but hoped someone would either take down the page, hide it until it can be reworked or fix it. It's written to discredit the subject of the page. I think it should be preserved as an example to teach about critical thinking and the importance of thinking about who profits/following the money. I checked Wikipedia about Natural News so I could get some useful info to evaluate the writing on the site, but the Wikipedia page slams them for being anti-GMOs and anti-big pharma. I'd be curious to know who wrote the article and who they work for.
Thought you might want to put it on the to-be-fixed list and take it down until then.
Thanks,
Grace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.170.145 (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not really seeing what is "biased" about the article, and unless you have actual evidence of it you shouldn't assume an editor or editors "work for" anyone. The vast majority are volunteers like you and me. Wikipedia articles contain what is written about the subject in independent reliable sources, whether it is good or bad. It may be that criticism of the subject is written about by third parties more than positive information, I don't know. If you are aware of independent reliable sources that have more positive information, please offer them. In any event, you may wish to express your concerns on the article talk page; when viewing the article on a computer, you should see a "Talk" tab at the top, click that to access the talk page and post your concerns. Articles are not "taken down" unless they go through an Articles for Deletion discussion, and I don't think one would succeed here. 331dot (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question is not symptomatic of bias, but rather of how Wikipedia works. All statements which could be construed as controversial are referenced to an adequate standard, and are therefore permissible. Wikipedia does not slam anything - it merely records the fact that reliable sources criticised the subject in question. Hardly surprising, given that it endorses what are rather niche beliefs. Nothing to see here. We, as editors, cannot use "critical thinking" to alter an article without rhyme nor reason, unless such changes are bolstered by citations. A list of the people who compiled the article can be found here, and the variety of names on the list indicates strongly that there is no inherent agenda at play. Before critiquing Wikipedia, and demanding pretty hefty changes, I would suggest familiarising yourself with how things work here, as your initial comment shows a lack of comprehension in this regard. If you would like, I would be more than willing to assist you in learning the basics, and enabling you to understand why the article, despite surface appearances, is not biased. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
This article is not biased because the vast majority of reliable, independent sources are harshly critical of the website, and the article properly summarizes that criticism. We do not whitewash or suppress legitimate criticism of pseudoscience websites. Cullen328Let's discuss it03:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
75.164.170.145 aka Grace: you say "I'd be curious to know who wrote the article and who they work for."
You can easily see who has contributed to the article by selecting its 'View history' tab and exploring. If you do so you will see that, after its initial creation on 19th March 2013 by User:Everymorning, it has undergone more than 450 edits by over 50 different editors, not counting bots. This is quite typical of articles on Wikipedia, which is founded on communal effort and concensus and strives to maintain a Neutral Point of View. Note that anyone who has a conflict of interest regarding a particular article, and anyone who is directly or indirectly being paid to edit it, is required to reveal those facts, and may be blocked from further editing if they ignore those requirements.
You can also visit the user pages of most of those editors to find out more about them, to the extent of what they have chosen to reveal about themselves. As it happens, Everymorning has revealed an unusually large amount: conversely, we know nothing about you – for all we can tell, you might be the Founder and Owner of Natural News.
Please, therefore, be very sure of your grounds before you assume and assert that an article's editors have been biassed or have edited it with a financial agenda.
[FWIW, I myself had never heard of the magazine before today and have no personal interest in the general topic, I merely read this Teahouse page regularly and comment if moved.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.211.131.202 (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Take This To Heart Record wikipedia page submission.
Hello, I recently submitted a wikipedia page entry for Take This To Heart Records It was declined by a user and they've referred me to teahouse for more help. I'm confused as to why it's being declined still, please see this thread for a little more context:
Welcome to the Teahouse, Jaytaylorpub. Your draft has four references. One is a routine directory listing and the other three are interviews with the record label owner. Interviews are not independent sources. None of these references establish notability. This label has only one notable band, and it seems that band is now signed to another label. We need significant coverage of this record label in independent, reliable sources. Based on the information in the draft, I sincerely doubt the notability of this label. Wikipedia is not a directory of every tiny business in the world. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for asking what I'm sure is a very simple question.
I made a small edit to a section of an article and then prepared to explain
the edit in the Edit Summary box. The section I edited was titled "History",
and I noticed in the Edit Summary box the following: /* History */.
Should I blank that out and type in my explanation of the edit?
Do I need to place /* and */ tags around the explanation?
Hi LindaPenn04 - "History" just shows which section you had edited. You can type your edit summary after that (no, you don't need to place / / around your edit summary). While you could blank it out if you wanted, it's better to leave it so people can quickly reference what specific section of the article you were working on. Chetsford (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And as long as I'm here, LindaPenn04, I might as well respond to your question. In general that preexisting language would not be deleted, but if you find the amount of space available for your explanation to be too limiting, you can gain a little space for yourself by deleting the language automatically provided. Bus stop (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary length was recently increased from 255 to 1000 bytes so the space should currently never be too limiting, but there is a proposal to decrease it again. @LindaPenn04: Edit summary code like /* History */ produces an arrow → with a helpful link directly to the section so please don't change or remove the code without good reason. See e.g. the arrows at Special:Contributions/LindaPenn04. Write your own summary after the existing code and do not add /* ... */ around your summary. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear reader
If you are a NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKING person, and if you have some spare time, please take a look on these articles, machine translated from French (fr:Peinture en Inde and fr:Peinture tribale en Inde). Don’t hesitate to log on as user, and make the needed language corrections. Best regards Andershus."Andershus (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)"[reply]
What's the right venue to request a review of an editor using AWB in a way that I think may be problematic? I'm assuming good faith on the part of this user, and going to ANI definitely seems draconian as I don't want to even hint at any misbehavior. What I really would like, is for an experienced AWB person to just have a look at their AWB use, see what they think, and maybe just give them some good Talk page advice, better than I am able to. I took a crack at adding some stuff to their Talk page about three areas I thought were problematic (see my recent contribs) but as a non-AWB user, I really can't say anything about the AWB angle (so I just stuck to basic WP principles) and have gone as far as I'm willing to on their talk page, or perhaps too far. Any advice? Mathglot (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Craft2art, welcome to our friendly Teahouse. Normally, I would point an established user to guidance at WP:RENAME, but you've only made 2 edits, so the advice to give you us simply to abandon this account and create a completely new one. This is quite acceptable, so long as you never use the old one. (For complete openness, you could even leave a note on the old userpage to explain the acount is abandoned, and pointing to your new one.) For guidance on what is and isnt OK in terms of user names, here's a special wikipedia shortcut link which will take you there: WP:UPOL. Regards from a rainy UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Craft2art If "Craft2Art" is the name of a business or website, it would not be acceptable as a username per the policy Nick cites. Your username must indicate you as an individual user. A name in the format of "YourName of Craft2Art" would be acceptable(you don't need to use your real name, just something unique to you). I would also add that if you intend to write about Craft2Art, you will need to review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID(the latter only if you are paid). 331dot (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi .. I want to add some pictures to my article but they R protected by license(they R from a website that i wanna describe their style) how could i use them? Zara st (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Zara st, and welcome to the Teahouse. Maybe as non-free content, but that depends on the context so we couldn't say anything certain without specifics. If this is about the article Mahdi Fakhimi, that one is under deletion. Having or not having images makes no difference for deleting or keeping the page, so you should only consider that once the deletion discussion is over. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Editorforart, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article was deleted (as unambigious advertising). You've already asked for it to be returned on the deleting admin (DESiegel's) talk page, which is the correct way to do this. If it's returned (as a draft page, I imagine), you can come back here for tips. In the meantime, just read some of our content rules. Happy editing! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Teahouse folks, good to see you again. I was wondering about the page [1] which I moved and copyedited yesterday. It seems non-notable, especially as there's no corresponding page for men. However, I don't want to scare off an editor with an overzealous deletion nomination (I've done almost none so far). Can someone help me with this judgement call? Airbornemihir (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Airbornemihir, and welcome to the Teahouse. Notability for stand-alone lists works like this: has the topic received significant coverage, as a group, in reliable sources? In this context, that would mean not just "Jane Doe was on the Red Channels list" or "Janie Roe was on the list", but something more like "all of these women were on the list, here's what it meant and why it matters". With a quick Google search, I can find articles that are exactly the thing. There is something to this effect on Google Books as well. Whether all of this amounts to significant coverage, I don't know. But that's where the judgement call should be. That there is no corresponding article for men does not play a part here, really (for obvious reasons, you won't find a lot of sources that discuss men on the list in the context that they are men). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Airbornemihir: My quick take on this is that it is indeed likely to be a notable List, but that better references are needed, or that at the very least, every article itself demonstrates these women were genuinely on that list. I've added a {{citation needed}} templ;ate, and have linked both ways to the Red Channels page. The List also needs some categories - probably just the same ones as used in the Red Channels page. Pinging @Rosiestep: as its probably worth alerting the Women in Red project to this new list. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Finnusertop and Nick Moyes: Great, it looks like there's no need to start a deletion discussion, then. Thanks for informing me in passing about WOMRED; I'd noticed the name before but I'd never looked up what the WikiProject actually does. Feel free to archive this. Airbornemihir (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegooduser: I've just left {{Teahouse invitation}} on your talk page without a problem. Are you referring to how the template(s) is/are applied by tools like Twinkle? I must say I thought there was one pre-loaded on Twinkle, but couldn't find it there. There are two TH talkback templates listed at Category:Templates used by Twinkle, but no welcome messages. Perhaps some of the 'older hands' here could comment. I'm actually interested in knowing how to get welcome templates pre-approved and loaded on Twinkle as I'm developing one for WomenInRed which it would be good to make available in due course. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: @Thegooduser: I've now established that we don't have our Teahouse welcome template available for deployment via Twinkle, but that wonderful little tool (assuming you have it enabled via 'preferences') does let you leave a TB (Talkback) message on the talk page of a questioner. As you see I've just done for you (albeit a tad clumsily). To use it on another editor's Talk page, go to the Twinkle (TW) menu adjacent to the 'Search Wikipedia' box. Select TB (Talkback), then select the 'Noticeboard notification' radio button, and from the drop-down box, select the last one in the list 'WP:THQ - Teahouse Question Forum' and then submit query to post the Talkback message. If you just put the question heading (not the full wikilink) in the 'Linked thread' window, the recipient gets a functioning link back to their question (providing it hasn't been archived after a few days here) I've not installed any of the Teahost Host scripts, so have no experience of using these at all. (Apologies to new editors here - I'm sure we really ought to have discussed this just amongst the other hosts at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse, rather than bore everyone here with it. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegooduser: - I'm really sorry! I was trying to second-guess what your problem was. You asked why the Teahouse invite templates didn't work, but you did not explain precisely what you meant by 'not working', or what you were trying to do with them. I asked if you could expand on what problem you were experiencing, or how you were trying to deploy the Teahouse templates?
Whilst waiting for you to elaborate on the problem you were experiencing, I tested them. As you will have seen, I manually left you both a Teahouse invite and then a Talkback message on your talk page, which confirmed to us both that they were indeed functioning. If you are unsure how to substitute a template, or aren't familiar with Twinkle, then my subsequent mumblings would indeed have made little sense. My sincere apologies for that. If you need me to explain how to activate Twinkle, I can also do that - just let me know. What I can't explain is any issue you might have experienced using any of these automated Teahouse scripts because I've never installed them. Hoping this is a little more succinct. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The civil war did not start over slavery, it was about the south's anger at the taxes they had to pay, they felt it was too much while they provided cotten for the north. Less then 10% of southerners owned slaves as they could afford too. The issue of slavery came later as the war progressed. It is false to say that slavery was the issue that began the war. Thousands of southerners did not go to war to protect the rich land owners. Seems like history is being rewritten falsely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelleydye (talk • contribs) 02:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kelleydye, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. All the histories I have read say that there were multiple causes of the US Civil War. Certainly many in the North wanted to abolish or modify slavery, and many in the South did not want that to be forced on them, as they saw it. Economic issues were also important.
Was there a particular Wikipedia article that you think should be changed in this regard?
This page, the "Teahouse", is primarily for helping people, particularity newer Wikipedia editors, with questions about how to edit Wikipedia. Do you have such a question? DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs04:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Kelleydye and thanks for leaving your comments here at the Teahouse. Wikipedia needs 'fired-up' editors like you to add content and references to articles like the Civil War. Do you have some sources, citations that you can use to support the statements that you shared above? If so, you may be able to contribute this information to the Civil War article. But if you are simply leaving a message here at the Teahouse about your concerns, there isn't much I can help you with since this is a place for new editors to ask questions. Best Regards, Barbara✐ ✉ 21:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Megabeast84: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure if by "my hockey club" you mean you play for it or you work for the office staff, but it would be best if you allowed someone unaffiliated with your hockey club to write about it. You probably have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest(please read about it at WP:COI) which would mean it is probably difficult for you to write about your hockey club with the proper neutral point of view required. You would essentially need to forget everything you know about your club and only write based on what independent, third party reliable sources write about it with in depth coverage(not the club website, press releases, interviews, or any primary source). Since your club is 91 years old, I would guess that there is a chance it was written about in third party sources at some point, but you would need to find those. If it wasn't written about by third parties, or only minimally so, then there can't be a Wikipedia article about it at this time.
However, if you think you can write in the correct manner and have the sources, you can first read Your First Article, and then submit a draft for review at Articles for Creation. You will also need to formally declare your affiliation with the club per the COI policy; if you are paid by the club in some way, you will also need to comply with the paid editing policy.
I would lastly note that any page you create would not be "a page for the club", but a page about the club. The club will not have exclusive control over it, cannot prevent others from editing it, cannot lock it to the text it might want to see, or prevent negative information from being on it(as long as it appears in an independent reliable source). 331dot (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to toss in that as an active editor in the Hockey WikiProject, I'm aware that editors have done a lot of hard work over a number of years to create pages for every notable team going down to ephemeral semi-pro teams at low levels and Tier II Canadian amateur junior clubs. I'd normally not think that we'd have missed any notable club that's been around for 91 years, anywhere in the world: could you give us the name of your club? Ravenswing 16:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am a member of the Royal Norwegian Society of Science (DKNVS).
There is an existing article about this society in Wikipedia (English and Norwegian versions), but those need to be supplemented. How do I add a supplement in an easy way ??
Am I allowed to do this without asking the Secretary of the Socierty ?
Please, give me an advice.
Jon Lamvik
email: (removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamvik (talk • contribs) 10:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jon, welcome to Wikipedia! Our articles are written by volunteer editors and are entirely independent from their subjects. Anyone can edit an article. You can find a short tutorial on how to do so at Help:Introduction (I'd suggest using the "Visual Editor" if you want the easiest way). One important thing to bear in mind is that anything you add must be supported by a reference to a reliable source. Also, depending on your level of involvement in the DKNVS, you may need to be mindful of our conflict of interest policy. Otherwise, I think you will find it quite straightforward.
This is the English Wikipedia and things might be slightly different for the Norwegian version. However, the basics should be the same. – Joe (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jon, I've removed your email address from your posting. It's generally recommended that you don't post it in public places as it could result in you receiving a load of spam mail. Any responses to your question will be posted here, or, as I see you've activated the option, by clicking on the "email this user" link on your User or Talk pages. Rojomoke (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the English language Wikipedia, it is Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences and Letters. A few comments. Here, and when writing comments in the Talk pages of articles, typing four ~ at the end of what you have written will add your User name. When you make changes to articles, there is an Edit summary space at the bottom of the screen. You are expected to briefly explain what you did. When you add content, you are expected to provide citations in support of the new content. The Society does not "own" the article. With a few exceptions, anyone can change any article. David notMD (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revising the name of a page
Hello I am new to Wikipedia and recently saw that there is a page about one of my ancestors. The name of the page is not completely accurate and missing his title. I would just like to amend this so that it reads correctly by just adding his title so the name would be exactly the same as it is now - just with a Sir in front of the name ( he was knighted) . Please let me know how to do this as I don’t want to change anything but want to add Sir. I really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.250.203.63 (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I'm new to Wikipedia, so hopefully I'm doing this talk thing correctly. I am trying to expand the stub article for Martha Chase. see that her name is given as Martha Chase nee Epstein, but as Epstein is her name from a brief marriage and not her birth name, is nee really the correct term? I think it's important to include all names for her to help people find her, but not sure what the protocol is for this sort of situation. thanks! Biochemlife (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Biochemlife. I've restored a previous version of the opening sentence of Martha Chase, since, as you say, Epstein was not her birth name (the person who altered the sentence may not have known that née means "born"). I've also created a redirect to the article at Martha C. Epstein. When you see something wrong like this, by all means be bold and fix it. I hope you enjoy your editing experience here. Deor (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Help me, please. I am not a sophisticated Wikipedia writer, I'm just a loyal user. I wish to request that The Bosman Twins Wikipedia page be restored. I was told that I could make that request via "WP Refund". Can someone give me instructions? I am unable to figure it out alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pr1775 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
However, the page The Bosman Twins was deleted under WP:CSD#G5, Pages created by a banned or blocked user in violation of their ban or block. Deletions for that reason are not restored via the "refund" process.
If you enable the "email this user" function, and specifically request that I do so, i will send you a copy of the wiki-text of the article by email. I will not restore the article.DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs02:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
contrary to your comment, english is my first language in which i have a phd,i do not however understand computer jargon i was asking how to edit
i have been advertising for wikipedia on my 9 billion sites (international syndicated)
if you can send a reply in english, i can make contributions and edits. until that point in time, i will only be able to ask my readers to donate to your endeavor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbmnj (talk • contribs) 04:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kbmnj: I assume by "your comment," you are referring to the message that Robert McClenon left on your user talk page a year and a half ago. This is not Robert McClenon's talk page, so a title addressing a "you" really addresses any reader who passes by, not just a single user you didn't name. You can think of user talk pages as if they were that user's office, and this page (the teahouse) as if it were lobby that everyone's office is connected to.
User:Kbmnj - First, what do you mean about advertising? The use of Wikipedia for advertising is not permitted. Second, your above post is difficult to understand. If English is your first language, then maybe you simply do not have a comprehensible message. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kbmnj, If you have a qualification in the language, I'm puzzled about why you choose not to use standard English punctuation, and especially capitalisation. You will appreciate that encyclopaedic language is required for articles, though it doesn't matter much on this page. We appreciate your efforts to advertise Wikipedia, but it is already very well known. There is advice on your talk page about how to make edits. Dbfirs20:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd say that being the 5th most viewed website in the world, with billions of hits a month, Wikipedia's doing pretty well without needing advertising help. Ravenswing 21:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OUT OF THE ORDINARY - Article Rejected
Hi,
My article Out of the Ordinaryhere has been rejected for two reasons.
The comments were:
Whilst some of this article is fine,the cast section contains quotes, whilst never referencing the quote, or saying who it is by. Everything that is said, should have a reference. The pictures are also un-encyclopedic, as this is not an article on the performers. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
In regards to the first comment, the quotes the editor refers to are from the published play. This can be solved with a footnote or reference?
The first unsourced quotation in the draft reads 'two parts Daria, one part Olive Penderghast. Glasses. Gingham. Feisty attitude.' That doesn't look like it comes from the play itself. Anyway, it's a quotation, and its source needs to be specified.
Also, the article is about a play, not a particular performance of that play. All the pictures of the actors need to be removed. So do qutotations like the one above, assuming that it refers to a particular performance.
@Tonyswife2018: Hello. This page is to ask questions about editing and using Wikipedia, and is not meant for general questions. You could try the Reference Desj but you might be better off making use of a search engine like Google, or contacting Adobe directly for assistance. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
review procedure - existing article
I've come across an article which I feel is massively too long and bloated in prose and also has something like 50 photos in it. Its obviously one experienced editor's pet project and I feel as a relative newbie any amendments I made would be reverted and given the articles low footfall a talk mention for consensus would get no response (someone else mentioned there it was overlong and promotional in tone some years ago and only the creator replied). Therefore I am asking is there a way that I can draw the attention of experienced editors to look at it? Lyndaship (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lyndaship: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It would help a lot if you pointed out which article you are talking about. You can put a message called a maintenance tag or template at the top of the article, which eventually other editors should see. There are many specific ones located at WP:TC but if you don't want to leaf through them to find a specific one(wouldn't blame you) you could just use one of the general ones listed near the top of that page. Or, if you point out the article, I might be able to glance at it and add an appropriate template. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I counted well over 100 images. And content that went far beyond the topic. This appears to be a one-person (Rosser1954) project dating back many years. It might be appropriate for an administrator to contact this editor and have a discussion about the article. David notMD (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rosser1954 has contributed to, and created, many other articles. And it's competently done, though it includes a lot of marginal material. I wouldn't want to discourage him. Maproom (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draft keeps being declined - need help with editing
Hello, dear Wikipedia community!
My draft keeps being declined by Theroadislong (only one user). As the user constantly mentions, my article is written in "totally inappropriate tone" and is a "blatant advertising". (The link on the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ESforce_Holding) Reason from the template: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia". "Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed".
I used reliable sources with neutral publications, and my article contains only the history of the Holding, nothing more, nothing less. ESforce Holding is very popular in my country, but doesn't have an article on Wiki. So, I decided to write one. However, my article still can't fit... I need help from friendly Wikipedia community, maybe I will get a helpful advice - how can I improve this article.
Thank you very much! MariaKR09:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "keeps being declined" by one editor. You created the article. It was tagged for Speedy deletion by one editor. You protested, so it was moved into Draft space to give you more time to work on it. Another editor rejected it. I tend to agree with Theroadislong that the article - as written - is too promotional in tone. Sadly, I am not equipped to read the references that are in Russian, but even if all references are from reputable, independent sources, I recommend making the article shorter as a goal for being more neutral. Lastly, have you replied to the question on your own connection to ESforce? This appears to be the only Wikipedia article you have worked on, which hints at the possibility that you have a COI or even a PAID connection. Good luck with your endeavor. David notMD (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I made a small start in removing the promotional tosh. But it's hard work. It would probably easier to delete the existing draft, and find someone unconnected with the company, who can start again from the beginning. Maproom (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict] Having had a quick glance myself, I wouldn't go so far as to say "totally" or "blatant" (perhaps because of Maproom's efforts), but to me it definitely reads as somewhat tonally inappropriate and verging on advertising: phrases like "market leader", "integrates all key areas", "provide a 90-percent reach" sound very much like PR puffery even if true, and in any case we require verifiability rather than "truth".
Many of the references are, not unreasonably, in Russian, but this does mean that properly evaluating their:
content (do they actually support the passages that cite them?);
reliability as sources (the current Ref 2, for example, looks like a self-generated entry on a user-editable website); and
independence from the subject (the current Ref 5 reads like a regurgitated press release, common in trade journals and news media but not acceptably independent);
would need a Russian-literate editor – I am not one. (I see no evidence that @Theroadislong: is, though he may be, but like me he can have legitimate misgivings merely from what he can see along the lines above.)
I suggest you try soliciting help from the links included in the 'Submission declined' template (after "If you require extra help . . ."), but note that, from his user page, Theroadislong has health issues and may himself not be able to respond quickly. However, remember that Wikipedia has no deadlines, so be prepared to spend some weeks on working with others to get this article into publishable shape. FWIW, I think the subject probably isnotable in the Wikipedia sense, but that has to be demonstrated from good sources in the appropriate encyclopedic style. {the poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.211.131.202 (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse section formatting
Hi, I have an article with an excessive bibliography listing. I would like to have an expand/collapse format so that the individual issues are collapsed by default. Is this easy to do?
Hi Epididymus. That's probably not a good idea. MOS:COLLAPSE recommends against using collapse templates in articles and specifically prohibits content being hidden by default. If the length of the bibliography (or any other list) is a problem, it's best tackled by cutting it down to a reasonable size or forking it to a new article, e.g. bibliography of X.
The real problem is that it's for a comic writer and so it has individual issues listed in a collection, which makes it super long. Do you think it'd be better to make it separate or just axe the individual titles for each title? Epididymus (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of maintenance template - conflict of interest
I would like to now remove the Maintenance Template, but I have a conflict of interest (which I have expressed on my own page).
Great if someone can please advise on how to proceed. I am conscious that no one with a COI should remove these templates, but I believe that the matter has now been resolved.
@Vialeoneiv: Thank you for adding some, but there are still paragraphs and whole sections without citations. There is no hard-and-fast rule on when an article is "well sourced" enough for this template to be removed, but ideally every statement should either be supported by a reference to a reliable source, or removed. – Joe (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I received help from a volunteer archivist in a small town who provided me important dates for my article which is now under review. She has not replied to my email asking for further clarification on her reference sources. Standard searches on Google have not helped. Her references have not been accepted by the editors and include:
Manitoba Record of Births
1911 Canada Census Record
Canada Census 1921.
Border Crossing Document from Canada to the U.S. 1890-1960.
Convenience link: Margaret Helen Bayly - I agree with the very good advice given on your talkpage, but maybe someone else here has additional suggestions. Btw, I took the liberty to format your post a bit and include a header to separate it from the previous topic. GermanJoe (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gracenoteseeker. The problem is that what the archivist has done, as you would expect, is archival research. That is, she has consulted the original documents you have listed above held in archives. That would be a fine basis for writing an original biography of Bayly, perhaps for publication in a local history journal, but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. We are an encyclopaedia, and as such we require articles to be based on literature that has already been reviewed and published by reliable sources. Specifically, we prefer secondary sources. The references you have cited are not published, meaning that our readers' can't reasonably verify the information in them, and they are primary, meaning that we have no assurance that your use of the information is appropriate from a scholarly point of view.
You will need to look for secondary sources on Bayly to base the article on, e.g. newspaper obituaries, entries in biographical dictionaries, etc. If these aren't forthcoming, then unfortunately she is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On reading the article, I find it difficult to understand how the subject merits a separate article, whether or not she is notable in the Wikipedia sense of being publicly well-documented. Many of the details included which are specific to her are unencyclopaedic trivia, and much of the article is about more noteworthy individuals with whom she was associated: she may merit passing references in articles about some of them, but this does not confer notability on her. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.211.131.202 (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For my money, I'd wait until the AfD spun out, but like 90.211.131.202, I don't expect the article to survive it. I advocated deletion myself. It's regrettable that the times relegated women to being helpmeets and hostesses, but no one would imagine that a man with this CV would qualify for an article. Ravenswing 20:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Caesar Augustus
On the right side of the page, underneath his statue, it shows that Caesar ruled from "16 JAN 27 B.C. to his death on 19 August 14 A.D. (40 years.)" The error here is that someone got tripped up on B.C. and A.D., as by this account Caesar would have been in power for 87 years. This is not the only place this error in tabulation occurs. Shouldn't this page be correctly edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.206.58.23 (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have mistaken how BC and AD work.
January 27 BC to December 1 BC is a period of 27 years (not 73, you have to count BC dates down, not up);
(there was/is of course no year 0 BC/AD in historical usage, though some sciences use one, which shifts all BC dates back 1 year);
January 1 AD to August 14 AD is a period of 13 years and 8 months;
Total 40 years and 8 months. If it helps, try drawing a timeline:
[Edited to add: your post below wasn't showing when I wrote the above. Not trying to rub it in :-) .] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.211.131.202 (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The1337gamer says "The whole point of having "2012" in the title and a disambiguation page Need for Speed: Most Wanted is to remove the need for a hatnote. There are no ambiguous redirects here, so a hatnote is not needed." when he reverted my edit the second time.
I strongly disagree. Users can come in from any place, for example by clicking a direct link to one of these two articles from a website or YouTube clip. I know I have been confused by this, thinking "Wait, that game was older.. wasn't it?" and it took me a while to figure out some idiot at EA thought it was a great idea to have two games with the exact same title. To our readers, I think this is a very useful hatnote. I'm sure it's totally obvious to a "1337 gamer", but we are not all that.
But if I'm wrong, that's fine too. In that case I'll be happy to start killing "unneeded" hatnotes. I don't personally agree with that, but if I'm wrong I'm wrong. Better to be consistent in that case. Alexis Jazz (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases The1337gamer would be correct. However, WP:DLINKS does contain the advice:
There is not always a need to add disambiguation links to a page whose name already clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term. However, for some topics this is a good idea. For example, Treaty of Paris (1796) should include a hatnote point to the disambiguation page Treaty of Paris (disambiguation), since many users might not know that there is more than one treaty with this name, and we cannot predict what external search engines will link to.
I would say that logic applies here, since as you say readers may arrive at one of the two articles from outside of Wikipedia, and be unaware that there are two titles with the same name. – Joe (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why is my article keep getting deleted
Im after creating Matchbook.com Wiki in my spare time. Im not sure why this is getting flagged for speedy deletion. All information seems to relevant to the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddrumm1 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I cannot view the article, it has apparently been deleted as it violates our policy regarding promotional content, and is unambiguously an advertisement. All content on Wikipedia must be neutral and supported by reliable sources, and your draft was deemed by El Cid, a highly-accomplished administrator, to not meet these criteria. Moreover, editors who have a conflict of interest for an article which they are editing should refrain from doing so. Not sure if this applies to you, but it is worth parsing regardless... Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
How can one break the stereotype in office environment, where women are not allowed to be in decisive and are not given the exposure???
Unlike the poem competition and debate competitions on woman empowerment where we argue in words and win the one, this question gets humongous once you are the one facing the reality day-in and day out. There lies the huge question whether to stay quiet or to speak up. The question gets more when the female colleague are lesser co-operative in your aspiration of speaking up and come up with the stories where you hear the women in higher hierarchy being demoralized by the rest of the authority. Why can not the men mass accept that the woman can be in a leadership position and they can follow without being humiliated? What could be the major factor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.104.74 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the Teahouse is a place where editors ask questions about editing Wikipedia. I'm sure there are any number of forums and chat rooms where you can talk philosophy. Ravenswing 22:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted some of the added content and citations. Referencing for health & medicine topics strongly recommends using only reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and government or major non-gov't agencies. NOT individual clinical trials or case studies. Also, the style is not to present some literature in favor and some not. Rather, it is to present nothing unless there is a body of work that approaches a scientific consensus. Sometimes it is appropriate to have a Research section toward the end of the article, where science in process can be presented. But even that should not be a dump for all half-baked content. I commend you for being bold in your additions to this article. And I implore you to make them better. David notMD (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since then, I made the decision that I actually wanted to split this one article into multiple because I felt that it was overwhelming for the reader and it would only get longer in length. Also the idea transpired from the fact that the tournaments that each of these categories would qualify for each have their own wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_Bowl and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice_Cup for example.
I created a draft for the first section of the original article found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:United_States_Bridge_Championships_-_Open where I also fixed the issue of notability because I found multiple New York Times articles about the events over the years. Do you have any other ideas on how to fix the page and make sure that it passes its review when it comes up?
I was sent here by Robert who originally rejected my first article to seek advice on how to improve the new page. He also said that the splitting up of the article would make the review more complicated. Why is that?
The rejection was not for lack of notability. Rather, it was that 107 of the 108 refs were from worldbridge.org or other bridge organizations. Your draft of a shorter option - just the Open Championships, still has far too many worldbridge citations. The few other types - NYTimes bridge columns back when the paper still had a bridge column - are annoying, as in addition to a bit about what was happening at the Open, each describes the play of a bridge hand, for which the accompanying diagram is absent. It may be impossible to find independent references for all the information you want to include. To be honest, I am appalled that scores upon scores of bridge plays are deemed notable enough to warrant their own articles - but then, I'm not a bridge player. David notMD (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability and (Promotional) Language Issues
Hello everyone, a submission of mine, currently available at draft:Shine.com has been declined. Please help with pointing out the mistakes, specific or general, and how to improve upon them with respect to modifications, additions, and removing content. Also, citations were mainly from the third party sources, there still may be notability issues, please help with that. I look forward to your helping hands.
I would like to declare that the article is an assignment from my employer.Amangoinplaces (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Amangoinplaces: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have been asked by your employer to write an article, you need to review the conflict of interest policy located at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID before you edit further; reviewing the latter policy is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use.
You and your employer seem to have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a place to promote a business or even merely tell the world about a business. Wikipedia has no interest in what a business wishes to say about itself or how it wants to be portrayed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, Wikipedia is only interested in what third parties write about article subjects such as a business. Primary sources like press releases, interviews with company staff, routine business announcements, and brief mentions are not acceptable sources for establishing notability. Most of your sources seem to be routine announcements and or press releases. The notability guidelines for businesses are listed at WP:ORG, and you should review those as well.
As you work for the business, it will be difficult(though not impossible) for you to write in the neutral point of view Wikipedia requires. In order for you to be successful in writing about your employer, you would need to forget everything you know about it and only write based on what third party, independent reliable sources state about it. As I stated, that does not include primary sources. If your business has not been sufficiently written about in independent sources, it will not be possible for their to be an article about it here at this time. Not every business merits an article here.
If you have reviewed the notability guidelines and truly feel that your business does merit an article, you should not directly create the page yourself, instead submitting a draft for review through Articles for Creation, where it can be reviewed by an independent editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. Again, though, if you cannot find proper sources, you should wait for your business to become sufficiently notable(as Wikipedia defines it) and allow others who notice it to write about it. If you just want to tell the world about your business, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When will Wikipedia get a facelift?
The mobile site looks sexy. The regular web version looks like a neglected geocities cite from the Clinton administration. This hurts users as they will be less likely to read and interact with the platform. Is there a facelift on its way? And if so, when will that be rolled out :) ? Thank you, Amin(Talk)06:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Amin: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know if you are referring to the Main Page specifically, but I know that there is general agreement that it should be updated, but not agreement on what it should be updated to, despite many attempts at reaching agreement. Incremental improvements are made occasionally, but for a wholesale redesign you would need to find a way to reach consensus among hundreds of thousands of editors from around the world all of whom have different ideas and opinions. I also think(though I don't have statistics on it) that the percentage of readers on phones is increasing more than on computers(which editors tend to use more). 331dot (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone! I am new to Wikipedia, and recently created article Clara Martinez Alberola since she has recently been appointed Head of Staff at the European Comission, which is an important role. Only, the article is short at this time, and I am not sure how it could be improved. --DeeM28 (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unambiguous advertising
Hey all,
I work for Everex as Brand and Communications Manager here and I tried creating a wikipage for Everex which was speedily deleted because I never attached the references.
The second time around, I tried adding with references with only small details about the company from a neutral perspective with references. I do not know where I went wrong and it would be awesome if any one of you can guide me through the process! Thanks a lot!
@Pdpiam: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, you do need to review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID before you do anything else; reading the latter policy is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use for paid editors.
I cannot see your second attempt(though an administrator can) but I can say that you seem to have a very common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a place to promote a business or even merely tell the world about a business. Wikipedia has no interest in what a business wishes to say about itself or how it wants to be portrayed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, Wikipedia is only interested in what third parties write about article subjects such as a business. Primary sources like press releases, interviews with company staff, routine business announcements, and brief mentions are not acceptable sources for establishing notability. The notability guidelines for businesses are listed at WP:ORG, and you should review those as well.
As you work for the business, it will be difficult(though not impossible) for you to write in the neutral point of view Wikipedia requires. In order for you to be successful in writing about your employer, you would need to forget everything you know about it and only write based on what third party, independent reliable sources state about it. As I stated, that does not include primary sources. If your business has not been sufficiently written about in independent sources, it will not be possible for their to be an article about it here at this time. Not every business merits an article here.
If you have reviewed the notability guidelines and truly feel that your business does merit an article, you should not directly create the page yourself, instead submitting a draft for review through Articles for Creation, where it can be reviewed by an independent editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. Again, though, if you cannot find proper sources, you should wait for your business to become sufficiently notable(as Wikipedia defines it) and allow others who notice it to write about it. If you just want to tell the world about your business, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Already done Never mind. Oshwah just blocked this account Thegooduser Let's Chat 23:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)