Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 279

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 275

←

Archive 277

→

Get back a deleted Draft page to resubmit

Hello all!

During the summer I was creating a page and submitted. I didn't check on its status for a while (for some reason I assumed that I would get an email if something changed). It was flagged for a copyright issue and then deleted. I realized that I made a silly mistake and didn't have an offline copy of it all. Is there a way that I can undelete or at least assess the text of it, so that I can correct the problems and try to submit it again? Or should I contact the user that deleted it?

Thanks!

Mfbergmann (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mfbergmann. In this case, I suggest that you contact the deleting administrator. The copyrighted material can't be restored, but if there is any substantial content that you wrote yourself, perhaps that person can restore those portions as a draft. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to contact them.

Mfbergmann (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

(incomprehensible question)

The Idea the this to I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.136.78.49 (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

??? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Why an article is deleted without a discussion?

Hi. I have been writing a few articles in Wikipedia, and I follow all the steps necessary to have appropriate articles that are relevant, and well documented. Last night I finished with a new article after hours of investigation. The page name before it was deleted was ´World Cultural Council 28th Award Ceremony´ , and I wrote similar articles for the 29th award ceremony, the 30th, and the 31st. I plan to write pages for all the award ceremonies in English and Spanish. When I visited the page that I wrote this morning, I found shocking to see a message stating that the page was deleted because of ´A7: Article about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)´.

Now, in my perspective, I feel just deleting pages without a clear reason is not an educational experience for a new editor like me. Before I try to negotiate with an administrator that has the power of deleting pages with a press of a button without reasons, I´d like to explore the Teahouse and perhaps someone can let me know why the article that was written is not up to Wikipedia standards. I think a discussion before deleting a page may be enlightening, not only for me, but for others that can try to write similar pages. In my perspective again, the page is relevant and significant for the fields of science, arts and education.

Fortunately, I still have my sandbox with the page I was writing last night. Can someone please provide some orientation on the right way of fixing the article?

The sandbox: User:Healing_Mandala/sandbox

Thanks in advance.

Healing Mandala (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Healing Mandala, I think the problem is what is the notability of the award ceremony itself? There's no doubt that the World Cultural Council is notable and the awards given out at the ceremonies are notable, but why are the ceremonies themselves notable? By creating the article that is what you are claiming - that the event has a notability that is independent of the organisation arranging it and the awards given at it. From the content of the article on the 31st ceremony I'm not sure the notability threshold is met for the ceremonies. Nthep (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Nthep for your response. I appreciate you are providing me some light on the matter. Let us reflect more on the notability of the award ceremonies themselves, if that's ok, so that I get a better picture. I'll make a comparison of award ceremonies. For example, why the Latin Grammy Awards of 2002, 2010 Palanca Awards, 2012 Nobel Peace Prize, 2012 Dally M Awards or any other notable in comparison to the one I wrote? Shall I change the titles so that the focus is not on the ceremony, but rather on the awards for a specific year? (i.e. Change 'World Cultural Council 28th Award Ceremony' to '2011 World Cultural Council Awards'? I prefer to understand the picture completely instead of continue writing articles that can be deleted all together. I thank you once more for your patience. Your responses will help me to become a better contributor. Healing Mandala (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that changing the title to '2011 World Cultural Council Awards', the article can shift to add more information to enrich the yearly data by providing how/when the laureates where selected, how the venue for the award ceremony was selected, establish all events prior to the award ceremony, and the award ceremony itself. Therefore, the 'World Cultural Council 28th Award Ceremony' becomes a section of the '2011 World Cultural Council Awards'. What do you think about this change of paradigm? Healing Mandala (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Healing Mandala: what title you use for the article is not the point. The question is, have several reliable sources, independent of the council, the winners, Tartu University etc written at length about this particular ceremony? This seems unlikely, (unless for example there was some major controversy that arose there). Looking at your sandbox, I'm dubious that any of the seven references meets this criterion. The first is not independent, the second and third are brief articles, and the other four are links to speeches delivered at the ceremony. These together establish that the event took place, and the named people were given awards: it does not establish that the ceremony is notable in Wikipedia's sense.

As for the other awards you cite: apart from the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize, all the articles are of dubious notability, and all are now tagged as such. Wikipedia has four million articles, and many are substandard; but this is not a reason to accept further substandard articles: see the essay wp:other stuff exists. --ColinFine (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine for the clear explanation. I was not intending to disqualify the random examples that I cited in the discussion! Sorry to read I may have put into trouble those articles. In the same way, I was intending to do my best to make a case for the articles I wrote regarding the ceremonies. I think I now have a better understanding of what notability means for an event. Meaning that having notable people, united by notable institutions, and receiving notable awards, does not make the event notable. As I understood, in order to have a notable event, at least a reputable third party source should provide a lengthy document that describes it. Are the ceremonies that I wrote about better suited for Wikinews then? Thanks again. Healing Mandala (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about those other articles, Healing Mandala: I have tagged them as lacking references, but not actually proposed them for deletion (out of laziness as much as anything else). Either somebody will improve them, or somebody will propose they be deleted, or they will sit there with the tags drawing readers' attention to the fact that they are poor articles. Your pointing to them has allowed me to improve Wikipedia, so don't be upset.

As you say, it is whether people have written about the subject that matters, not who was involved. The ceremony could be briefly mentioned (perhaps in a table with the other years) in the World Cultural Council article. I don't know Wikinews well enough to know whether it belongs in there. --~@ColinFine (talk)

I just submitted my first article for review

Hi Guys. It's very nice to know that I can rely on wiki experts to guide me through becoming one in the future - so good work on being there for us.

I created an article and worked on it for quite sometime to ensure all sources I cited are verifiable and submitted it for review this morning (it's now on my draft space). The article is Ed DeCosta a personal development and executive coach. I believe him to pass the notability standards as he is a published authors who received multiple recognition and reviews from sources independent from him such as an interview on WBNW (AM) Money Matters Radio Network Program, his publication review by Kirkus, interview with Stacey Alcorn of The Huffington Post and he also co-authored a book with Jack Canfield. He was also recognized by John C. Maxwell on his website. Everything is cited accordingly.

I think my opportunity now is the style of writing. I created it as neutral as I possibly can but I think I need to work more on it. I would very much appreciate it if you can give me feedback on it if you have time.

Thanks in advance. Pmanz2014 (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pmanz2014. You can learn to write more neutrally, and need to work on developing what is often called an "encyclopedic style", or what we call the neutral point of view. Are you familiar with the old TV show Dragnet where the detective played by Jack Webb says in a deadpan voice, "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts", when interviewing a witness? That's the style we are looking for: neutral, informative, and consistent, whether the subject is Abraham Lincoln or Adolph Hitler.

When reading your draft, we enter a world where every notable writer is a "best selling author" and everyone mentioned must be promoted, as if we were at a self-help networking session, where extra points are given for praising people you have just met. Start by stripping every single gushing superlative from your draft. Do not put quotations in italics, as quotation marks are sufficient. When you mention other people, just mention them, with a neutral description of a few words, rather than lavishing praise. This is a biography of one person, not a mega-biography of all of his friends and associates. I hope that my criticisms are not too harsh, as they are intended to be helpful, and you must learn this lesson if you are to be a productive editor here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cullen,

Your feedback is very much appreciated. I really did need this kind of feedback to improve the article. Thank you so much!

Is there anything else that you think I need to work on so it'll pass the wiki standards for approval? Pmanz2014 (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Please use the technique described at WP:REFNAME to define a reference once, and reuse it several times. This will clean up clutter in the reference list. Give the full name of your references. For example, the actual title of the review, not "Kirkus Book Review". Eliminate all external links from the body of the article. Those links should be limited to internal Wikilinks. You can create an "External links" section at the end, for a handful of directly relevant external links. Links judged overtly promotional will be treated harshly. These are technical issues, while my initial comments were about a more fundamental issue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, got it - Thank you so much for the time. I really appreciate it. Pmanz2014 (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed article might be deleted

My article on film company Walsh Bros myth be deleted as it has most the same information as that of the founder of Walsh Bros namely John Walsh (filmmaker). Should I start again from scratch or can this be allowed as much of the information is relevant to both articles? Thank you. RichardRichardLyons74 (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RichardLyons74. The debate about the deletion of your article is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walsh Bros, and that is where discussion of that specific article should take place.

In general, if two very closely related topics can be dealt with in a single article, then that is preferable. So, if one person is the dominant figure in relatively small company, then there is no reason to have articles about both the person and the company. Only when the single article becomes excessively long would a split into two articles become justified. That does not seem to be applicable in this case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Place names

Please help: this concerns an article on Kotwa. The one that comes up is Kotwa, India and when you open the 'disambiguation' then you see that there is Kotwa, Zimbabwe. How can I make sure that Kotwa, Zimbabwe comes up straight away as well? I do not mind change the article to read straight away as Kotwa - Zimbabwe. This problem really affects Facebook users because if you put your hometown as Kotwa it will take people to Kotwa India when it is supposed to be Kotwa Zimbabwe Mubrang (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mubrang. The issue you raise is discussed in a subsection of our guideline about disambiguation at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In this case, we have two small towns or cities. According to our article, the town in India has over 12,000 people. Population is not given in our article, but a Google search tells me the town in Zimbabwe has a population just over 4,000 people. On the other hand, it is a governmental and commercial center. It would take some careful study, but one solution is for searches for "Kotwa" to lead to the disambiguation page rather than either of the town articles.

As for the Facebook problem, that is something we have no control over. We do not structure the encyclopedia to favor Facebook users, either in India or Zimbabwe. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Mubrang. As Cullen pointed out, we have two articles for Kotwa – "Kotwa, Zimbabwe" and "Kotwa, India". So we have to choose which article to display when someone types only "Kotwa". Currently we display the article about India, but we also try to make it easy to find the other article. That is the reason for the hatnote at the top of the India article.

Anyway, about your question, to make sure that people from Facebook go immediately to our article on "Kotwa, Zimbabwe", the best way is to write "Kotwa, Zimbabwe" on Facebook. If they type that, they will go immediately to the right article.

For people who type simply "Kotwa", I edited the hatnote in "Kotwa, India" so that now readers can display the "Kotwa, Zimbabwe" article with 1 click, without having to look at the disambiguation page. This should be at least a little more convenient. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy versus consensus

Anyone interested in making Wikpedia a source for reliable info even if that goes against consensus at times? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to propose a change to Wikipedia's policies or procedures, the Village pump is the place to go. But your presentation of Accuracy versus consensus appears mischievous to me: the question was argued at great length, presumably by people just as concerned with accuracy as you, and your imputation that consensus was somehow at the expense of accuracy looks like a failure to WP:assume good faith. --ColinFine (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

What I would like discussed is the following fact: the woman's name was Helwig, not Hedwig, and the artcle is incorrectly named because of WP policy which in this case violates WP:Common sense. If that's mischievous to you, so be it. Let's see if it's even possible to discuss very unfortunate WP idiocyncracies of this kind, or if it's taboo. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding an entry for a famous Taiwanese calligrapher.

I'm currently working on translating a biography about Taiwanese calligrapher Hsu Yung Chin (徐永進) and would like to add an entry for him on wikipedia. Should I just read the guidelines and add the entry or will this just be promptly removed?

Thanks in advance

61.70.60.162 (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous user. I suggest you create an account (not essential, but advisable if you want to create a new article), and use the article wizard, which will guide you through creating the article in the Draft space. There, it will not get removed unless it has serious problems like copyright infringement. --ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Page name

Hi , Im very in new to this and any type of computer related work if im being honest.

I set up a page for local amateur football team i run.

Ive added a fair bit of info to the page , but the page is titled "User-Mendip UTD FC" I cant work out how to get rid of the "User" before the club name ? Basic I'm sure ?? 82.132.237.119 (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I assume you are User:Mendip Utd FC, but were not logged in when you posted this question?

I'm afraid there are some fundamental things about Wikipedia that you haven't realised, so what you are trying to do is probably not possible (I'm speaking about policy, not technical matters).

First, Wikipedia is not a social media site: it is an encyclopaedia. It does not contain "pages for" organisations, but articles about them. These articles are required to be entirely based upon what reliable sources, unconnected with the subject, have written about them. So if there have been articles about Mendip Utd in major newspapers, or it has been mentioned in books from reliable publishers, then there may be an article about it. If it hasn't been so mentioned, then it is impossible to write a satisfactory Wikipedia article about it (because there is no acceptable source for any information about it) and the subject is not notable, and no article is permitted.
What you have inadvertently created is a user called "Mendip Utd FC", and that user's User page. A User page is intended for a user to share information about him or herself as a Wikipedia editor: there is more latitude allowed than for articles, but it should not contain a lot of information unconnected with Wikipedia, and it should certainly not contain something that purports to be an article.
Thirdly, if there were to be an article about Mendip Utd, you are discouraged from working directly on it because your conflict of interest is likely to make it difficult for you to write sufficiently neutrally.
Finally, the user name contravenes our rules, because Wikipedia user accounts are required to be individual (i.e. used by one person only), and may not have names that suggest that they belong to organisations. That account is likely to be blocked very soon.

My suggestion to you is that if you wish to edit other Wikipedia articles, you create a new account personal to you (I use my real name for my account, but you don't have to do that: but it must not suggest that you are editing on behalf of an organisation), and read WP:42. But unless you can find some reliable independent sources for Mendip Utd, you should give up the idea of writing about it in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are a number of problems here regarding User:Mendip Utd FC. You seem to be confusing a user page, which is a description of an individual Wikipedia editor, with an encyclopedia article. You have created an account in the name of a group, and that is against our policies. We only allow individual accounts, so please change the name of your account promptly.

A more serious problem is the question of whether or not this sports club is notable, and thereby eligible for an encyclopedia article. While fully professional leagues and teams are clearly notable, I think that it is fair to say that few non-collegiate amateur sports clubs are notable. There would need to be significant coverage of the club in independent, reliable sources that goes way beyond routine sports coverage in local newspapers. The current draft is unreferenced.

Another problem is that the draft article is written in a breezy personal style, using "we" and double exclamation points. Instead, our encyclopedia articles need to be written in a strictly factual, neutral style.

If your sports club is not truly notable, then please don't feel bad. It is difficult for a new editor to write a new article properly. I encourage you to pick another topic, and work to improve an existing article to start. Good luck to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

REALLY HELP

I am (user:Halias 23), on another account, I could not recover my password, I really need help to to regain my old account, thanks (user:ELreydeEspana) 12:27 1 November (UTC)

Hello Halias 23. I am afraid that the account Halias 23 did not register an email address. As far as I know, that means that there is no way to recover that account if the password is lost. I'm afraid you'll just have to abandon it and use your new account. There's nothing to stop you editing the user page User:Halias 23 to tell people that the new account is you. --ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Iam fucked, thanks for your help, try sending an email to wikipedia, could you tell me how to change my username, thanks (user:ELreydeEspana) 12:51 1 November (UTC)

Hi Halias, if you want to change your new username you can do that at Wikipedia:Changing username, but first read my answer at my talk page, where you are asking the same thing simultaneously. w.carter-Talk 19:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Science and engineering entries

Hi, I am new to editing Wikipedia. I am a scientist and engineer who has been working about 30 years in various areas, and I would like some advice on how to create new wikipedia articles on new emerging topics in my areas of expertise. My approach is more from the angle of the scientist doing the research in the context of the overall field, rather than reporting the work of others from the outside. I have about 60 peer-reviewed publications and about 20 issued US patents, have had academic positions at U-Michigan, MIT, Harvard, and am currently a tenured professor at UNC Chapel Hill, so I am generally accepted in mainstream academic and commercial/industrial circles for my work. Some of the topics I want to contribute to Wikipedia are new inventions or discoveries, but unfortunately peer-reviewed papers tend to lag behind by several years, and patents lag by an average of 5 years or more. Open-access and traditional academic publication, though important, have their limitations and I think much of the information I wish to share would best be reported on Wikipedia. Mainly this is because people can benefit from having access to it now rather than having to wait several years to then have to sift through the academic papers, with their rigid formats, to find what they need. Also, Wikipedia articles though brief can incorporate many individual contributions in a way that peer-reviewed publications can not. Finally, Wikipedia is self-correcting, something that archival academic publications are woefully inadequate at doing. I want to avoid contributing anything that sounds like an advertisement, but I also want to be able to state the facts as they are, backed up by real data from verifiable sources. And I welcome criticism and input from others, as I know I am not the only person working in these areas. So my question is: can you point me to specific guidance for making contributions to Wikipedia along the lines described above that would help me to contribute the maximum value? Do you know of any template contributions from people in similar positions, basically people with verifiable credentials who wish to contribute in the capacity as an "expert"? I do not wish to downplay the importance of crowd-sourced wisdom, but I also know the value of the insights of a person who has professionally focused on a topic for decades. I'd rather hear the opinion of Hillary Clinton on political matters, though she may not have a reference list to support her assertions, rather than listen to my neighbor drone on about the same topics, even though he is certainly entitled to his opinion. I guess my general question is: Does Wikipedia have any specific mechanism to consider expert opinions when weighing the value and relevance of a contribution, assessing appropriate content, etc? thanks. Bobslab (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Bobslab. Thank you for wanting to contribute your expertise to Wikipedia. I am not sure, but I fear that what you want to do is not a good fit for Wikipedia. Every Wikipedia should be entirely based upon material already published in reliable sources - and most of it on secondary sources, which comment on, or analyse, or synthesise from, primary material. Original research, including synthesis of published information, is explicitly and always forbidden in Wikipedia articles, and material from primary sources (such as most academic papers) is limited in how it may be used. Once there are several secondary materials (eg textbooks) in a field, then an article could be written, summarising what they say. Please see the links in this paragraph for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Bobslab. We welcome your expertise, but please be aware that Wikipedia has a specific policy against publishing original research of any kind. As an encyclopedia, our only role is to summarize what the full range of independent, reliable sources say about a topic. In the case of scientific and technical topics, these will be articles in peer-reviewed journals, especially review articles that analyze and summarize primary research. I encourage you to develop expertise as well in how Wikipedia works behind the scenes. Start by reading our Five Pillars, the basic principles of Wikipedia, and read and study the relevant links there. Feel free to return to the Teahouse at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Your responses, in addition to being very helpful also pointed me to the NOR noticeboard, which was also helpful. So that clarifies for me the matter of contributing (as yet) unpublished work: verboten. Fair enough, and I can see the value in and need for that. Fortunately this leaves the majority of what I would still like to contribute, which involves contributing concise summaries of what is already published, by myself and others, on topics not yet treated on Wikipedia. Are there any guidelines that may relate specifically to contributing material where the contributor is also the author of some of the verifiable references? Bobslab (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read our guideline on citing your own published work, Bobslab. Though not forbidden, it should be done with caution. Open disclosure is recommended. To give a simplified example, let's say you are one of five recognized experts worldwide on a given topic. If you cite yourself 20% of the time, not a problem. If you cite yourself 90% of the time, other editors may conclude that highlighting your own work is more important to you than summarizing what the full range of reliable sources say. That's not a good perception to create. Read also about the concept of due weight. I hope this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Theirry Henry

In the article it shows that he scored one goal in four appearances for Arsenal while on loan with them, but this goal was in a cup match and it says goals for the domestic league only so should this be changed or not? Zafiraman (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend that you continue the discussion you started on the talk page [1] Information on WP is based on reliable sources. If you have a good source for the information you speak of then go ahead and make the correction and cite the source. Or continue the discussion on the article's talk page whichever you prefer. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

How do I create a robot?

I saw someone who had made a robot account and wish to make one as well. Please tell me how to do it! Thanks! HTMLoveit (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. You should find the page WP:BOT useful as it links to all the relevant pages about bots on Wikipedia. In short, you need a good reason to need a bot to do something, then you need to gain approval for the running of your bot. It's quite a big topic - the page I linked explains the process better than I can :) Sam Walton (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, HTMLoveit. Please begin by reading our overview page on bots. There, you will find links to bot policy, the approval procedure for bots, and so on. All bots operating on Wikipedia must meet certain standards, must be approved, and must be doing useful work to improve the encyclopedia. Good luck! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

One Of the User:Anna Frodesiak Moved my Page to Drafts For Deletion

I live In Rampur, Which is located just 180 km far from the Capital Of India That's Delhi. During the 18th century there were many of the Famous Indian Wrestlers , Who Contributed a lot for Their nation's Pride, and My Great Grand Father Ustad Sohrab Khan was one of them.... and In our CIty , Their is a landmark called AKHARA SOHRAB KHAN, and each and every person living in our City Knows about that Landmark And The Person After whom The name of The Landmark was given By the Nawab OF Rampur SIR, RAZA ALI KHAN , Because of My Great GrandFather's success in Indian Wrestling And I'm Asuure you that you can Searh About The Nawab Of Rampur and many of The Interviews taken By Media Persons of Our AKHARA SOHRAB KHAN, How you Can Say that whatever I've written onto my Page Is all Hoax,,,Thats NOT good view from a good user:Anna Frodesiak, If It Was an HOAX , I would Have been scared of you that you reported my Fake HOAX page TO wkipedia Drafts ... But I'm telling the Truth... Because I was planning to Give many of the other reference related to my Topic From google books,BLOGS,Websites,My Youtube Videos Of Wrestling In our AKHARA SOHRAB KHAN and Pictures of the Books in which the whole Incidents are Quoted... Have You Ever Heard about RAZA LIBRARY , IT's Asia's Second Biggest Library please do search Google About This Library Because many of The Books are Their in RAZA LIBRARY that were written on My Great Grand Father and His Wrestling Platform AKHARA SOHRAB KHAN...]] Now What To Do, Dear Tea House? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddiquekhan1978 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak replied to your post on her talk page saying that the draft can be undeleted but you need to deal with certain issues first mostly that a lot of the content seemed to be pasted from other articles like The Great Gama and from a Facebook page. I suggest that you read that response and act on what she asks you to do and the nask her to restore the draft article. Nthep (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy ping User:Anna Frodesiak. (If you mention another user in a post here you should wikilink their username so that they are properly notified of the discussion.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. I would be happy to provide a copy of your draft, except for the parts which appear to be a copyright violation. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I post an article on a band that had a top 5 hit record in Perth WA in 1969?

In 1969 I was in a band in Perth Western Australia that had a record of an original song that reached #4 in the local Top 40 charts. It was given massive radio airplay at the time, and the record is still played in Perth on ABC radio and on a number of community radio stations. I have copies of the many newspaper and magazine articles that were published about the band and the record at the time to use as source references. An article on this subject would be of interest to people who remember the song from that era, and also to younger people who hear it played now. Can I post an article on this subject, or must it be posted by someone not connected with the band? 101.173.85.70 (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Internet User 101.173.85.70. I highly recommend that you create a Wikipedia account if you plan to work on this article. That will facilitate communication and collaboration with other editors. Please begin by reading WP:NMUSIC which is our notability guideline covering musical topics, such as songs and bands. If you truly believe that either the song or the band meet that guideline, then please proceed.

Your final sentence indicates that you are aware of a possible conflict of interest. Yes, this is a potential problem, but if you are careful, you can avoid this. You should not try to write an article in our main encyclopedia space. Instead, I recommend that you write your article through our Articles for Creation process. More experienced editors will review your draft article for compliance with our policies and guidelines, and if it is approved through that process, no one will raise the conflict of interest issue. Please be aware that this is a slow process with a long backlog.

The copies of newspaper and magazine articles you have are potentially excellent sources. Especially useful would be any articles published in Eastern Australia or in other countries, as they would help show broader than local notability. Those from highly reputable publications are better. Those that provide in-depth coverage are better than passing mentions. If any are available online, that is good but not necessary. Sometimes Googling a distinctive sentence from the source unearths an archived copy online.

As you develop your draft, please feel free to return to the Teahouse with additional questions. We will be happy to assist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to add, User:Cullen328 unfortunately mentions something here called "Eastern Australia", when of course no such thing exists. Instead, I believe he means that any press coverage from regions outside Western Australia, for example press coverage in Queensland, New South Wales or Victoria, would be much more valuable in proving notability than more coverage in Western Australia. I'm sure that press coverage in the Northern Territory would be just as good. And of course, press coverage overseas would be even better. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

My deepest apologies to all Australians, and to you, Demiurge1000, for using a sloppy Americanism. I should have written "from other states of Australia", but at least I didn't mention "provinces". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Teahouse people. I will do as you suggest. 101.173.255.239 (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Page Time Out?

I am in the process of creating an article and twice it looked like the session timed out. I try to save my page but some of the info is lost. Sometimes I am researching my written material that I am going to enter and not typing. Is there a timeout period? Nancyprancy12 (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Nancyprancy12: Welcome to the Teahouse, and sorry to hear about the troubles! I've never had any problems with time outs, but if it's a recurring problem for you, I can think of a few solutions. You may wish to do your editing in another text editor (Google Drive, Microsoft Word, OpenOffice, WordPad, etc.) and save your work locally as you go until you're ready to save an edit. I also recommend Lazarus, which is a great browser extension I use that backs up form data as I enter it - perfect for when you accidentally lose or navigate away from an online form you're filling out. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nancyprancy12. Sometimes, I can recover "lost" work by backing up to the previous page. If I am working on something complex, I will often use a sandbox page, saving frequently, and then copy and paste it when finished. This is acceptable if just one editor works on the sandbox content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A question about Oldtown Folks

I've been doing some work at this article. I successfully had it moved from an incorrectly stylized title ("Old Town Folks") to the current correct title. I also cleaned up some tags. Recently, another new editor has come along and added a VERY long plot summary, that seems quite outsized for the overall size of the article. I tried removing it to discuss it at the talkpage, but (s)he just readded it without discussing it at talk. Could someone have a look at the history of the page, the current state of the article, and the short discussion I opened at the talkpage, and advise me on how to proceed? It appears the user is working in good faith, but they haven't responded, even after I left a message at THEIR talkpage, so I'm at a bit of a loss. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 21:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hallward's Ghost. Please read How to write a plot summary, and encourage the other editor to do so as well. In brief, a plot summary should be concise, and should not overwhelm the other referenced content about the novel (or other fictional work). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been to this page before--I just thought maybe another editor's input with that person who's placing the long plot summary might be more useful than just me trying to get him/her to respond. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 00:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Mathematic equations

Question from User:Cyrusrobati who had problems posting on this page:

i do have new equations in mathematics as well as some 'corrections' to be made in wikipedia pages with regard to mathematics and physics. how can i do it? User:Cyrusrobati talk 03:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cyrusrobati. Please read Help:Displaying a formula, which I hope will be useful to you. If by "new equations" and "corrections", you mean equations and other things that you have discovered, please be aware that Wikipedia does not publish original research, but instead only summarizes what has already been published in independent, reliable sources. Please also feel free to ask follow-up questions, as this can be a complex area of editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

help writing an entry for my late father

Hi! I tried to create an entry for my late father and someone has since removed most or much of it for "horrendous BLP violations".

The entry is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Esser and it looks like Hullaballo Wolfowitz made the major edit on August 2, 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_Esser&direction=next&oldid=607937000

I'm wondering if you would provide some guidance here, or if I should try to contact Hullabaloo directly. Thanks so much and let me know if you have any questions.

Sky Esser (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz in this matter. The article does not say that your father is dead, so our strict policy on biographies of living people applies. Even if you offer evidence of your father's death, it is highly unlikely that this content is appropriate for an encyclopedia. You state that your father was a pornographer, a drug addict and a convicted criminal. Only if several reliable independent sources gave significant coverage to his involvement in these activities would this content be appropriate. To simplify, he would need to be a famous pornographer like Harry Reems, a famous drug addict like William Burroughs, or a famous criminal like Charles Manson to be discussed in an encyclopedia this way. Please rethink your approach. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sky Esser. In addition to advice Cullen328 posted above, I recommend that you read through both the "Wikipedia plain and simple conflict of interest guide" and "Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest". Since you've stated above that Carl Esser is your father, you have what is called a conflict of interest (COI). Although COI editing is not expressly forbidden on Wikipedia, it can be pretty tricky to do and there specific policies that you should familiarize yourself with. I also suggest you read through Wikipedia's rules regarding biographies of living people as well as "reliable sources" and "verifiability" . A lot of what was removed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz may be true, but on Wikipedia verifiability takes priority over truth. Almost all of the sources cited as references in your father's article are not considered to be reliable sources in Wikipedia's eyes per WP:BLP#Reliable sources so, even without the material that was deleted, the article still has some serious problems that are going to be really hard to overcome unless some better sources are found to establish your father's notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Finally, you mentioned in your question that your father has passed away. Perhaps you are trying to honor him by improving his Wikipedia article? While that is entirely understandable, please be advised that Wikipedia articles are not intended to be memorial pages for friends or family members, etc. and that relevant Wikipedia policies still need to be satisfied regardless. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the deleted content, this seems more to be a case of WP:ANTIMEMORIAL (red link intended). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Perhaps you're right. Maybe I assumed too much good faith and should have added that Wikipedia articles are also not intended to be attack pages. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

How to enter my old account, i really need help

I am (user:Halias 23), on another account, I lost my password and no longer remember, I not could be recover, And I have some outstanding pages to create, HELP!!!!!, thanks (user:ELreydeEspana) 12:20 1/12/14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ELreydeEspana (talk • contribs) 18:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This matter has been dealt with on several other pages. If you have a problem with something, you only have to ask at ONE place (I have counted five so far). Help will come anyway. :) w.carter-Talk 09:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Where to submit a link/article suggestion for a specific page

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Awards_and_prizes

This page links from List of awards and nominations received by Carnivàle Carnivale received awards from The Women's Image Network http://thewinawards.com.

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Awards_and_prizes has "Featured article, list and/or topic candidates" and "Featured article candidate" and "Featured list candidate" spaces where I could suggest this awards show, http://thewinawards.com. It's been around 16 years.

But this may not be an appropriate place, I'm overwhelmed by the Wiki rules. Category:Awards this could be another appropriate place, but I think it's only existing pages. Sedaray (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sedaray:, I'm not quite sure I understand what you are asking but I think you are asking "why isn't the article about Carnivale linked to the article about the Women's Image Network Awards?" The simple answer is because no one has yet linked it - I have now. If you think it is appropriate to link one article to another then feel free to do so. I think you may be getting confused about WikiProjects - which are pages for groups of editors with a common interest and Categories which are ways of indexing pages by topics. The Wikiproject's list of Featured articles and Featured lists is for articles that meet the required Wikipedia standards about content, referencing, depth of coverage etc not the notability of the subject, so while the WIN Awards may have been around for some years and are a ntoable topic, the Wikipedia on them is little more than a basic stub and is nowhere near meeting the criteria to be a featured article. Nthep (talk) 11:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Addition of a new person to wikipedia

Hello, I just saw an amazing art installation at Tracy Williams Gallery in NYC by the artist Darcy Miro and i'm wondering why she isn't in Wikipedia? There is quite a bit about her online but seems like a cohesive wikipedia page would be of value as well. Who do I ask to compile this page? Thanks! Emma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.72.237 (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Emma welcome to Wikipedia! The best person I can think of to start an article about Darcy Miro is you. If you are confident that you have sufficient reliable sources about Miro then you should be able to at least start an acceptable article. See WP:ARTIST for a brief summary of the criteria that an articles about artists must comply with to be acceptable. If Miro passes at least one (but preferably more) of the listed criteria an article about her would probably be sustainable. By the way we have a very brief article about her mother Marsha Miro but note that it is currently tagged for being inadequately sourced, so don't use it as a model for your article. A general guide about getting started with writing Wikipedia articles is at WP:Your first article. If you need any further assistance please come back here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

How to change 'Redirect from'

Hello, I created an article on my Sandbox and I've moved it as a Wikipedia Article but it still appears redirect from: my user name, so my Sandbox page is still busy and I can't create others articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaul_Knaz My question is: it is just a matter of time or do I have to do something that I still didn't get? Thank you in advance Krokamaora (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Krokamaora, that is just an automatic redirect that appears when the article is moved. You simply remove the #REDIRECT [[]] and the sandbox is all yours again. :) This is a thing we all wonder about the first time we see it. I have done that for you. Happy editing, w.carter-Talk 14:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much!! Krokamaora (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Krokamaora, I've "undone" W.carter's change in favor of adding my {{User:Technical 13/SandBox/DraftHeader}} template to your sandbox. What this means is that you can now keep track of ALL your drafts (even the ones you have moved to article) and easily create new drafts. Just type the final destination page name in the input box and click the button. :) Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I request an unblock for another user?

A user was blocked (including having his talk page access revoked). I have reason to believe he was not notified as required by discretionary sanctions for the ban upon which he was blocked. Can I request an unblock on his behalf with the {{unblock}} template? --Obsidi (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse Obsidi! Generally, you could start a discussion with the blocking admin. However if the user has his or her talk page access revoked then it is best for the user to utilize the Unblock Ticket Request System to request an unblock, the system involves admins who would review a unblock request similar to the {{unblock}} template. In this case you list ban, for bans a user may request a ban to be overturned/appealed by using the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, this is where the banned user will email an appeal on the ban/restriction to the committee, it will then by reviewed by the members and either approve or decline the appeal. ///EuroCarGT 02:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I know the user can appeal himself through the Unblock Ticket Request System. And I know I can talk to the admin himself and see if I can get him to reverse his own block/ban. In this case it was a topic ban combined with a block so the Ban Appeals Subcommittee does not work (they only handle site bans). My question isn't so much to do with what the user can do (I know he can use the WP:UTRS), my question is about my own actions. Is the {{unblock}} template exclusively for the user to appeal their own ban or can it be used by others (or is that against some rule somewhere)? --Obsidi (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Now things are getting more clearer. Firstly, the blocked user should be the one requesting the unblock either via email, UTRS or the unblock template. Secondly remember a topic ban is set either by community consensus or by proposal of the Arbitration Committee. If the user wants the topic ban lifted should a discussion be initiated gathering community consensus for the ban to be dropped. ///EuroCarGT 02:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A topic ban from an area subject to discretionary sanctions may not have originated with the community at the noticeboards or by the ArbCom itself, but with an uninvolved administration at Arbitration Enforcement. However, the procedure for requesting the unblock is the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Does misrepresentation of undoubtedly reliable sources fall under WP:FAKE?

So I'm probably in way over my head here, but I feel like I really have nothing to lose.

The short version of the background is that I am trying to make helpful contributions to an ongoing Arbcom case, and as part of that I've taken a more detailed look at one of the related articles. I think I can make a convincing case that in several places, statements are made and then cited with a source that would generally be considered very reliable, but the source does not actually evidence the statement. I further think I can show that the lede of the article in question further distorts those statements in summarizing them, in order to push a biased POV. (Once that's established, then I guess I have to go through diffs and actually blame people properly in the Evidence section.)

Questions:

1. Is WP:FAKE the appropriate policy to cite here? Or exactly what should I be referencing?

2. Offering the necessary analysis is thoroughly impossible within the normal space limitations for an evidence statement - part of the problem is that long articles are used to support short claims, and there is a lot of nuance and subtle distinction in what is being said. I'm likely going to need a paragraph each on perhaps dozens of citations (not sure yet, but it's a long article) and I don't imagine that I can just select a couple and expect to be taken at my word that they're representative.

So. Do I email Arbcom with all of this? Would they read it? Anything else I can do? Absolutely any helpful suggestion would be appreciated.

76.64.35.209 (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 76.64.35.209. First, I recommend that you open an account to facilitate communication with other editors. WP:FAKE is an essay. It is a good essay that interprets policy well, but you should refer to actual policies and guidelines. I suggest that you post your careful analysis on the article's talk page. You can briefly summarize for ArbCom and link to that talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I strongly concur with the suggestion that you create an account, especially because IP addresses change dynamically, so that you are likely not to have a consistent address. It is not likely to be useful to email the ArbCom. The ArbCom normally acts on the basis of the evidence record. They only consider emailed evidence in special situations involving privileged information, such as the identity of pseudonymous editors. If your analysis is too long, you can create an evidence page in user space (which will again require that you create an account). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies. I'm afraid I may not have adequately explained the complexity of the situation. There is already an Arbcom case open and I have already participated in it. There are two "sides" that can pretty clearly be identified (or at least, most people involved seem to think so), and there's a fairly clear narrative in arguments made by the other "side" that essentially blames SPAs on my "side" for everything. If I were to create an account now, I'm sure it would come across as an attempt to skirt the rules (e.g. on evidence section limits) or even as sockpuppetry. What I'm figuring on writing up here isn't "evidence" in the standard sense (i.e. the diffs of the wrongdoing), it's a lengthy background argument (i.e. why it's wrongdoing).

I've been following the situations off and on more or less since it started getting bad, and to the best of my knowledge nobody has yet attempted to make a clear case along this specific line. I would be puzzled by that, except that it's taken me this long myself to figure it out. Apparently, hardly anyone involved is thinking clearly :)

The idea of putting the analysis on the talk page seems promising - other editors might revert it or start an irrelevant argument or something, but I could at least keep a link to the diff where I start it... 76.64.35.209 (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings 76.64.35.209 I haven't followed this thread in any detail but I just want to respond to your comment: "If I were to create an account now, I'm sure it would come across as an attempt to skirt the rules (e.g. on evidence section limits) or even as sockpuppetry" I don't think that would happen at all. Just when you create the account make sure to be up front and say on your user page (and also on any relevant talk or aribtration pages you actively take part in) that the user formerly known as "76.64.35.209" is now known as whatever user ID you pick. Regardless of the details of any interaction I think you always look much better in these kinds of discussions if you have a user ID. It shows you are serious about wanting to contribute and about wanting to be completely open in all your exchanges. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I see from your talk page that you are referring to the Gamergate controversy, which is a highly contentious minefield. In my opinion, there are numerous benefits to creating an account and not a single solitary negative. ArbCom is looking only at editor behavior, and does not arbitrate or even comment on the specifics of content. Please be aware that your edits, whether as an IP or a registered user, will be subject to intense scrutiny. Tread carefully. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcoming new comers

How do you welcome new comers? -- Annonymus User 1000 (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

(what do you put on their talk pages) -- Annonymus User 1000 (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Annonymus User 1000: Welcome to the teahouse. You put {{Welcome}} on their talk page. --Jakob (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you -- Annonymus User 1000 (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Some kind of 'blame tool'?

What's the most efficient way to find out who contributed a specific bit to a given (long) article, and the diff(s) where it changed? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Integration of WikiBlame in en.wp

There is indeed a blame tool, and it is called WikiBlame. It's already integrated into the page history view on the English Wikipedia; you can get to it by following the "Revision history search" link in each page history. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

saw yield strength of enamel of teeth, seems way too high

Engineer here and there's no way the yield strength of enamel is 2 orders of magnitude higher than the strength of hardened stainless steel. I didn't want to edit it but that's definitely incorrect. Thanks!

PatPchriste4321 (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pchriste432 welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately you are mistaken. We only answer questions regarding editing Wikipedia. If you have a problem regarding an article, discuss it on the articles talk page. Editors experienced in specific subject may help you out. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Chamith: Chamith I don't really understand your response. It's true that a targeted place to post this is on the talk page, though it may not be a well watched page, but we engage all manner of questions and other issues related to Wikipedia and I'm not sure what you mean when you say this person is mistaken. About the factual issue raised? Have you found which article this is about, researched the issue, looked at the sources, and determined that whatever statement it contains is correct, or do you mean something else?

@Pchriste4321: Hey Pchriste4321. Can you advise the name of the article and what exact text it was that brought you here? (was it possibly the statement at Tooth enamel that it has a "Young's modulus of 83 GPa"?) The talk page you were advised of would be reached by going to whatever the article is and then clicking on tab labeled talk at the top left. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Pchriste432. The article appears to be referring to the Young's modulus (rigidity), not yield strength. Per the provided citation, the Young's modulus of tooth enamel is indeed 83 GPa; the yield strength only 330 MPa. For comparison, a bit of searching tells me that steel generally has a Young's modulus of about 200 GPa and a highly variable yield strength, but generally at least about 200 MPa and sometimes considerably higher depending on how it's prepared. The values for enamel don't seem unlikely to me by comparison. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Pchriste4321: Actually to be honest, I have no knowledge on teeth/enamel whatsoever. That's why I advised you to start a discussion on talk page. You should at least try it before jumping into conclusion that you won't get any replies. And yes I visited enamle article hoping to find what you are talking about but I even then I didn't understand your question. Probably because I had no idea about what I was looking for (like I said I don't have knowledge about teeth). Please provide extra details to Teahouse hosts when you are posting questions regarding articles. Thank you. And also you can get help from Wikipedia:Help desk. Regards--Chamith (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted article copied to sandbox?

Hello All, An article I wrote was deleted for lack of notability. I am not complaining overly; the writing was not as encyclopaedic as it should have been and it lacked the citations and references. I didn't know what I was doing at the time and had no help, so the article was not good. The article was nominated for deletion and duly went. No sooner had it disappeared than editors have come out of the woodwork with advice and offers of help!

The point of this is this, I believe that I read here that I could request the closing editor to copy the content to my sandbox, did I imagine that? I have messaged the editor and requested for that to happen and so far he has ignored me. Yes, we could start from scratch, but it would be far easier to have the framework at least to work from. Should I approach the closing editor again? Thanks in advance. Kiltpin (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kiltpin. If the closer continues to be unresponsive, you can file a request for userfication (is that a word?) of the content at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, or you can choose to contact one of the administrators listed in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, G S, just the information I needed Kiltpin (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@G S Palmer: "userfication (is that a word?)"
Yes :-) See Wikipedia:Userfication. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)