Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 367

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 360 ← Archive 365 Archive 366 Archive 367 Archive 368 Archive 369 Archive 370

How should I deal with vague accusations and being ignored?

I don't know if this is the right place to post this, but I am at a loss.

The short version: In some areas of Wikipedia, I get various offhand accusations of policy violation, but my refutations and requests for elaboration are often just ignored. This is depressing, and I am considering leaving Wikipedia altogether. What can I do to combat this negativity and ignorance that editors show me?

The long version

About three months ago, I made my Wikipedia account to help guide my research of topics in which I was interested. I had been making edits here and there for years before that, and I have been using Wikipedia as my go-to source of information for even longer. I was sold on the idea of Wikipedia as a global repository of knowledge, and I wanted to help. I even donated money to it.

Anyway, I figured that I could not only use Wikipedia as a starting point for my research, but I could also use it as an end goal. I would learn from existing article content, improving it as I went along, and use it to direct further research, which I would then contribute back to Wikipedia. There was something appealing about having an achievable end result of my studies that could help others. The policies here regarding neutrality, verifiability, and notability appealed to me, too, as they would promote rigour and a relative lack of bias in my work.

Well, I had a bit of a rocky start. Despite having familiarized myself with much of Wikipedia's structure, policies, guidelines, and essays, I found a lot of opposition to a page that I tried to make. This was my first exposure to the negativity from editors surrounding the topics of life extension and transhumanism. Many accusations of policy violations were thrown at me, and it was a lot of work to deal with them all, but I did so in depth, quoting the relevant policy and the relevant content sources. Unfortunately, my rebuttals largely fell on deaf ears. Eventually, the page was deleted.

I was able to salvage some of the research from the page, though, and move it to other articles – mostly to the life extension page. This went fairly smoothly, but the real trouble started when I tried to add some new research to that page.

I had seen some news stories online about a transhumanist political candidate who talked a lot about life extension, and I noticed that there was a section on the politics of life extension on the page, so I thought that a mention of the candidate here would make sense. When I added a sentence about him, though, it was taken down because an editor thought the source that I used was self-published. In response, I explained how the source was not self-published, got a third opinion that agreed with me about the source, and even added a new source from a well-known publisher.

However, the editor removed the content again – this time because it was supposedly off topic and "coatrack". I asked them why it was off topic or "coatrack", but they did not give an explanation. Instead, I received insinuations that I was pushing a political agenda along with just a stronger insistence that it was off topic. I did not want to inflame the situation, but I also did not want to be bullied, so I tried rewording the sentence so that it focused more on life extension and did not name the candidate/party or even wikilink to their pages.

Unfortunately, the editor removed this, too, apparently because there was "no consensus". By this point, the editor had linked me to many pages for Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and essays – the editor seemed convinced that I was a political advocate – and I tried to read and respond directly to all of them. I thought that it would appropriate, then, to give the editor a link to a single essay about not reverting edits due to "no consensus", but they completely ignored it.

The editor did have a friend, though, to fire off even more accusations at me: that I was using Wikipedia as a soapbox and violating its neutral-point-of-view policy. Thus, I addressed each point in Wikipedia's "soapbox" policy, asking for a quote from the part that I supposedly violated, but my request was denied. Similarly, I covered the whole NPOV policy in my response, including over a dozen reliable sources to show that one sentence is not undue, but the editor neither explained their NPOV claim further nor investigated the sources.

I decided to look more into the political party of the candidate in question, and I discovered an even bolder claim by another editor on the transhumanist politics Talk page: that the party did not even exist! I thought that the discussion could benefit from the sources that I found for the other page, so I mentioned them here and quoted some passages – words by professional journalists in notable publications with editorial staff – that asserted the party's existence. To my amazement, these were rejected by the editor, and they implied that the authors were just passing on the candidate's misinformation. Additionally, I was subjected to a barrage of insinuating questions about my offline involvement with the candidate and his party. I agreed respond to these questions, in hopes that the editor would answer at least one productive question of mine, but my questions were ignored.

Meanwhile, I had submitted a Dispute Resolution request for the dispute on the life extension page. The volunteer who agreed to help resolve the dispute was actually quite reasonable, but the resolution process had ground to a halt, and the volunteer then announced that they were taking a hiatus. Around this time, the editor from the transhumanist politics page inserted themself into the DR process, bringing their claim of the party's nonexistence and implying that I was supporter of the candidate (which I have never been). I replied that I did not think that the editor's discussion was relevant to the DR attempt, as the existence of the party was not being challenged, but an editor from the life extension page disagreed. I invited them to explain why, but I was ignored yet again.

By now, a new volunteer had taken the DR case, and we were just waiting for him to start. Eventually, though, he announced his uncompromising verdict without asking any questions or soliciting discussion: that the sentence should not be included on the page because of the soapbox policy, adding that Wikipedia is not for advocacy or public relations. This was a real blow to my spirits – yet another person banded against me, seemingly convinced that I was an advocate or spokesperson somehow.

I just gave up, agreeing not to add the content out of a feeling of hopelessness. I still wanted to understand, though, how I could have violated the soapbox policy (which I had read over and over) despite not being affiliated with the subject in any way or wanting to promote it. The volunteer actually agreed to answer my questions, so I posted them on his Talk page a few days ago. However, once again, I have received no response. The volunteer has been active and responded to queries from others, but he is simply ignoring me.

I don't know what to do. It seems useless to try to improve the parts of Wikipedia that interest me if they're guarded by those who will cycle through an array of non sequitur accusations without responding to questions or acknowledging counter-arguments. I don't want to start edit wars or unhelpful bickering, but I see no way around it if I want to contribute to articles. I am on the verge of abandoning Wikipedia.

What can I do when this happens? How do I respond to someone who avoids productive discussion? Should I just give in to deletion of helpful contributions to avoid an edit war?

I would really appreciate some help.

--Haptic-feedback (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like the Dispute Resolution case has closed with what one editor describes as a "clear outcome to not include the proposed text." In this case, I'm not sure there's anything more you can or should do to try and get the text in question included.
I think that editor can come across as quite rude and just blindly continued asserting you were an advocate—this definitely wasn't an assumption of good faith. I think sometimes it's just better to drop the stick and try to move on: perhaps try avoiding interactions with them in future.
We're not all like that. And besides, you can get a lot done on Wikipedia without even encountering a discussion. Instead of the argument you two were having, I'm sure you would have each had the time to make massive improvements to the encyclopedia elsewhere. If you insist on working on topics like transhumanism... well, there are currently 40 transhumanism-related "stubs" you could improve, for a start. Just make sure you tread carefully and use only sources you are certain are reliable. If you're unsure about anything, try posting on the talk page of the relevant article before making changes. Not all talk page discussions involve constant bickering and unproductive assertions. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 08:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Your long version is too long, difficult to read. However, if you think that the dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard ended incorrectly, you have the option of posting a Request for Comments to the article talk page. Unlike the dispute resolution noticeboard, RFC is binding. By the way, at the dispute resolution noticeboard, while a case is still pending, if you are not satisfied with the moderator, you can ask for a different moderator. However, in this case, I would suggest, rather than going back to DRN, you use Request for Comments, which is binding. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I'm sorry that my post was difficult to read, but thanks for making an effort. I have already told the other editors that I will drop the matter, but I appreciate you recommending me a tool to deal with situations like this in the future. That's exactly what I was looking for, so thank you. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Bilorv: Thank you for taking the time to read what I had to say and offer advice. I am indeed just going to give up and move on, as the matter has gone on for a month already without progress. It is disheartening to avoid certain parts of Wikipedia out of despair, but your words do help. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
By the way also, your short version is too short. However, if you get what you describe as "offhand accusations of policy violations" and say that you don't get satisfactory answers, it does help to provide links to the appropriate talk pages, rather than ask vague questions like the above. In the case of a content dispute, the only form of content dispute resolution that is binding is RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: My long version is too long and my short version is too short -- sorry! Anyway, I was hoping that my long version would give enough examples of my problem, but I'm sorry that it's still vague. Here are the Talk pages that I mentioned -- I hope that they help:
--Haptic-feedback (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment Hi. I'm afraid I can not tell you where to go for help, but I can tell you where not to go. Do not take your question to ANI. I took a very similar question to yours to ANI in the last few days and although some admins were polite, other Users were extremely unhelpful, uncivil and started throwing personal attacks. Apparently, asking questions there is not allowed and anyone that does is ridiculed. Just a heads-up for you. By the way, sorry you have run into Jytdog.DrChrissy (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

At this point I don't need the links, but thank you for them. As I said, there is a way forward for you, and that is to post an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Well, I don't want to go back on my word to stop trying to add the content, but I will definitely use RFC if a similar problem arises in the future. Thanks again. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@DrChrissy: Thank you for your advice and sympathy. I will try to avoid that noticeboard and follow Mr. McClenon's advice of using Request for Comments instead. I am sorry to hear about your bad experience – I can definitely relate – but thanks for sharing it. This and your kind words make me feel like I'm not alone, and I really appreciate the support. Cheers. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Haptic-feedback: Above some editors gave you nice advice, I will tell you some minor general things. First thing is that, your user page is red, so whenever you will make any edit, people will think that you are a new user and they will have "suspicious" look at your edits. You should have blue user page.(I will create your user page). 2nd thing is that, your account should not look like single purpose account (as you said you are interested in some topics), once people feel that you are on Wikipedia just to edit topics of particular subject then they will have suspicion over your edits for "possible point of view pushing". You should edit other articles too so that people will think that you are on Wikipedia to really build Wikipedia and not for point of view(POV) pushing. Thirdly you should not write essay like comments, then people will obviously "ignore". If you write same kind of essays in article then even if your write it from reliable source still it can't be part of that article. And last thing is that, everyone is equal here, we can be just "more experienced" than you but no one has special authority over content of the article, if you follow proper guidelines then your edits will get accepted surely. Best Luck. --Human3015 (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Human3015: Thanks for making me a user page -- I hope that it will help. I do edit articles unrelated to life extension, but I of course focus my edits on pages that interest me, and I don't want to ignore responses on Talk pages, so these appear most on my contribution log. I don't see the point of making edits on pages that I don't care about, though, so this seems unavoidable, and I just hope that others won't misjudge my character instead of considering on my words. Anyway, I assure you that I try very hard to keep my article content quite concise. I am not convinced, though, that edits that follow guidelines will be surely accepted, because my recent problems seem to me to disprove this claim. However, I will try to have faith in the future, and I thank you for taking the time to help me. I sincerely appreciate it. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Who decides what a spam post is

I added a external link to an Article about Jack Adams . The link was to Jack Adams entry on Find A Grave. The entry was undone and the explanation reads as follows. 17:21, 26 July 2015‎ Resolute (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,586 bytes) (-24)‎ . . (Undid revision 673109012 by Chris M 1950 (talk) rv find a grave spam). Is this kind of link considered spam and if so I am curious as to why. I see it a lot on Wikipedia. Am I allowed to undo the undo ??? Chris M 1950 Chris M 1950 (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Chris M 1950: No, you shouldn't undue a revert. You should discuss with the editor who reverted you and also read the guidelines for external links. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this a good article?

I am going to write an article about Eastern Middle School, and I wanted to check that it met the requirements. It is one of three magnet middle schools in Montgomery county, and is the feeder school to Blair High School, which is particularly well known. One of the three magnets, Takoma Park Middle School, has a page, which I think justifies the Eastern page. But I would like to check. 72.66.78.40 (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Essentially [if] it is has substantial third-party coverage from the media etc., it will be deemed notable and hence suitable for Wikipedia. I would recommend you read WP:Notability for more information. -PotatoNinja(Talk to me!) 13:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Added an "if" into PotatoNInja's comment, for clarity. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC).
The existence of one article never "justifies" the creation of another, each article must stand on it's own merits. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I will look for some stuff. Good to know for future reference.Brackattax (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I want to add image for references

I have received a notice mentioning that the page I have created about "Neelmani Thakur" may be deleted anytime and it is disappointing . Please lemme know how can I attach references and images for the sake of authenticity. Theindianinformers (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Please help me ASAPTheindianinformers (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Theindianinformers and welcome to the Teahouse. Don't worry about images, they do nothing to establish significance or notability. The first thing you need to do is to add some text to Neelmani Thakur making it clear why the subject is significant. Then you need to add citations supporting the facts in the article. See Referencing for Beginners for details, but in general you place, directly after the fact or sentence which a reference supports <ref>details of ref go here</ref>. The details should include the name of the article the author if known, the title of the work (newspaper, magazine, web site etc), a link if the source is online, page numbers if the sources is printed or a PDF. DES (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Note that any sources cited should be reliable sources, so no blogs, fan pages, social media sites, or Press Releases or the like. Note that at least some of them should discuss Neelmani Thakur in some detail (several paragraphs at least) and should be independent, so no interviews with Thakur would count for this. See this summary of the basic essentials for an article. See also Your First Article. DES (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Theindianinformers, I see you added two images which look like photos of newspaper article in Hindi. Such images are protected by the copyright on the original publication, and I believe they will shortly be deleted. They are also of no value to the article, in my view. Instead please provide text citations to newspaper articles or other reliable sources which confirm the statements made in the article. DES (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Involved in a dispute and looking for feedback

Please take a peek at Talk:Dependency_injection#Disadvantages_Section and let me know if I'm handling this well. Not looking for someone to settle the dispute. Just need someone to keep me grounded. Thanks. Galhalee (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Please undelete my Draft on Ray Carr so I can get some help to FINALLY get it written the way everyone here thinks it needs to be to be accepted.

I wrote a draft for an article on Ray Carr - a local disc jockey, which was deleted in May WITHOUT NOTIFYING me in my e-mail. I have tried repeatedly to get advice on chat, and some help with rewrites, but, apparently, I never seem to get it good enough for Wikipedia to accept it. I'm told the man is "not notable", and I don't agree, and could add a lot more than is there now, if the page would be undeleted. I tried following the instructions on how to do this, and I don't know if it went through. Can someone PLEASE help me with this? I just want to get it DONE and PUBLISHED ALREADY. THANK YOU. Here is the code I used for my request: ==Draft:Ray Carr==

I, CVActor1, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. CVActor1 (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC) .. CVActor1 (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi CVActor1. You request has already been answered at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Draft:Ray_Carr; there are some questions there which are awaiting your response. Yunshui 雲水 08:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

I'm having trouble getting an entry on a company I work for published. The reason quoted was that the article was not written from a neutral point of view.

It is stated in the rules of submission that if an author is affiliated with the topic they are writing about, this should be made obvious on the user page. I did that. I referenced reliable sources (academic papers, newspaper articles, etc.) and used a neutral tone.

I am willing to edit the article but, despite having consulted various entries on Wikipedia's guidelines for style, content, etc., I cannot find much fault with my article.

What did I do wrong?

Many thanks in advance

185.15.236.52 (talk) 07:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi 185.15.236.52, and welcome to the Teahouse. Can you let us know what the name of the article is, so that we can take a look? I don't see any article edits in your contributions, so I presume that you were editing the article from a different IP address. Without knowing this, it's hard to say what you did wrong (if you did). Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, sure! The title of the article is Tyromotion GmbH (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tyromotion_GmbH). This is my user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TyromotionKarin I have also just received another note stating that the user who reviewed my article thinks the topic is notable but that I should mainly revise the products section.

Again, many thanks. I suppose it's quite obvious I'm new to all this...

185.15.236.52 (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, Karin. Just a tip before I make any comments on the article, which is that it's best to sign in whenever you post something on Wikipedia, so that other editors can follow your posts from a single contribution history. Signing in also prevents you IP address (and therefore your location) being available for all to see. As for the conflict of interest issue, can I suggest that you first take some time to read the policy outlined at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? As you'll see, that policy strongly advises editors from contributing to articles about subjects they have a close relationship with, such as their employer. It may well be that you are completely neutral and able to write objectively about Tyromotion, but this sort of editing is very likely to cause other editors to question the neutrality of the article. It's good that you've declared your conflict of interest, though. What you could do is try to encourage other, neutral editors to look at the page content and ensure that it complies with Wikipedia's policies. One place to find such people might be Wikipedia:WikiProject Robotics - you could try posting a request for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics. I also see that Sulfurboy, who reviewed the draft, has encouraged you to find more third-party sources on Tyromotion, which is a good suggestion. Sources such as the scholarly journal articles are exactly the sort that you should be using. You should also make use of the talk page at Draft talk:Tyromotion GmbH to discuss how to develop the article, and get views on whether your proposed additions are neutral. What some editors do when they have a conflict of interest is to only edit the article talk page, not the article itself, in order to make suggestions about material to add but to leave it to other editors to ensure that Wikipedia policies are met. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, you've been extremely helpful!! I will definitely follow your advice. TyromotionKarin (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

What kind of sources are allowed in Wikipedia and why Primary Sources are not allowed in Wikipedia?

I actually added a source which was a direct quotation from a Buddhist Scripture. 2 editors removed it by saying that it is a primary source. What is the reason that Primary sources aren't allowed in Wikipedia? Please help me. Terabar (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Main reason is if we overuse Primary Sources, Wikipedia wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a bunch of blogs. Galhalee (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policy on primary sources is that a *reliable* primary source may be used to make straightforward, descriptive statements, but care must be taken not to add any evaluation, interpretation or analysis of what the source says. WP:PRIMARY contains the policy itself, and the practical application of this policy is discussed in the essay Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Our answers could be more specific if you provided a link to the edits in question. Galhalee (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Overlink tool

As a regular FL nominator, my biggest weakness is WP:OVERLINKING, especially in references. Both times I've nominated a list for featured status, I have been scrutinized for my overlinking in references. My issue is that going over every single work and publisher parameter when there's over 200 references on a page is exhausting and takes far too long. Does anyone know of a tool that can detect link brackets and alert an editor that the same link is used twice in a page? Any help appreciated, Azealia911 talk 12:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Azealia911. There is a script you can install: User:Ucucha/duplinks that does exactly that. It can be a bit faulty sometimes and to get every double link I open the page in the editing window and put the link I want to check in the seach box of the browser, with brackets, and this way you will quickly see if a link is made more than once. Best, w.carter-Talk 12:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
W.carter Thanks for the suggestion, I've installed it, but I'm not really sure how to use it, nothing seems to be happening on its own anyway, any instructions? Thanks, Azealia911 talk 13:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@Azealia911: Look under "Tools" in the left hand column on the page you want to check. You should see a new addition there: "Highlight duplicate links", if not restart your browser. Click on that and the duplicate links should get framed by red lines. If not, reload the page and try again. I tested it on the Gotland page and got some hits right away. w.carter-Talk 13:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Permanently use desktop version

When I go to a Wikipedia article on my macbook, it frequently uses the "moble" version, which I hate. Is there a way to tell it to always use the "Desktop" version, forever, no matter what?MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the URL you are using is en.m.wikipedia.org, which is the mobile version of wikipedia. I'm assuming you've only visited this version before, so all you need to do is remove the "m" from the address, which stands for "mobile" on almost every website that is compatible. Since safari (and most browsers) generally shows the most visited versions first in the search bar, make sure you type in the whole URL until the browser memorizes your preference. -PotatoNinja(Talk to me!) 15:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
So if you have the mobile version of Potato (no pun intended) the URL bar will show en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato, just change it simply to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato and it will come up the full version. --2602:306:BCE9:8AE0:FD92:CB74:610F:4CBF (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Really the question has not been answered. Is there any way to prevent the program (Safari or Chrome on Ios 8.2, in my case) from _ever_ going to the mobile version in the first place (ever). Then there wouldn't be a need to remove the ".m." repeatedly. Sometimes I have a link to a WP article and it will come up as the mobile version no matter what tge link says. In other words, Safari is _asking_ WP to send the mobile version. Happens with all sites that have mobile versionsdeisenbe (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
At the foot of the Wikipedia mobile page there should be a link to the desktop version. If you tap that, it will take you to the desktop version and, I think, make that version the default for all Wikipedia pages that you visit.--ukexpat (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The question now being asked is how do I change my browsers behaviour and that is a question to aim at the people who support the browser. Nthep (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please review my article? 'Smaller Plate Study'

I've made changes to my article, 'Smaller Plate Study,' please can someone review it and give me feedback? Roxydog13 (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Roxydog13, I gave it a quick once-over. The article's subject exists in that strange grey zone where a study itself rather than the subject of the study is the topic, hence what would normally be a secondary source (peer-reviewed paper) becomes a primary one, with attendant problems. So there is still a certain bias towards primary sources here; still, referencing looks good to me now. I did remove the two anecdotal-seeming result reports from Core Performance and MediFit, these being primary without the benefit of peer review, and rather advertorial in tone. Also jiggled the content of the "Criticism" section a bit. Good to go now, I'd say. All the best -- Elmidae (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

EL

Hi, if anyone can look at this EL An early sculpture of the article Sadanand Bakre. Can this be removed ? Thanks! Peppy Paneer (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It requires a google login, which is free. What else is wrong with it? DES (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Not quite. I get "This blog is open to invited readers only" when I log in using my google account. Rojomoke (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@DESiegel: Hi..."permission denied" is being shown in the tab when logged in with google account and "This blog is open to invited readers only" is displayed. When checked on wayback machine following is the message - "Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt" What do you suggest ? Thanks! Peppy Paneer (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Peppy Paneer, Rojomoke, That sounds like good reason to remove the link, as per WP:ELNO #s 6 & 7. I will do so. DES (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

<ref> ?

I represent a company that provides appraisals and valuations (economic sector). I would like to know what kind of <ref> should I insert ? regards, Joao Carlos Papaleo Mynarski14:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)~

Hello @Joao Carlos Papaleo Mynarski: . First things first: As a representative of the company you have a conflict of interest and need to declare your paid editing status.
With regards to references in order to have a stand alone article, the subject of the article must have been the subject of significant coverage by reliably published sources that are independent of the subject of the article - not press releases, not blog posts, not facebook, but sites with reputations for accuracy and editorial oversight, like major news papers, books (non-self published), or magazines and journals.
Once you have the third party sources, then the formatting is covered at WP:REFB. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

African School of Economics

I just revised the article "African School of Economics" based on suggestions for improvement. Could it be reviewed again for approval? Thanks. Ase cotonou (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ase cotonou The article African School of Economics was already accepted back in May, there is nothing to review. However there are several tags pointing out problems in the article that should be fixed. As each tagged issue is resolved the corresponding tag should be removed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@Dodger67: I think the user was trying to say that they had tried to fix the problems identified in the tags and was asking whether someone could 'review' the article to decide whether the tags were still warranted, or can now be removed. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

How to Provide "Sufficient Context" on a complex topic?

Hi,

I am writing an article about a specific industry standard on configuration management. This is one of the most well know, and highly used standards for configuration management (CM). Unfortunately, there is very little thorough information about this topic online as it is a fairly complex subject.

I wanted to create an easy to understand wikipedia page detailing this topic, but my drafts keep getting rejected due to providing insufficient context.

Draft Title: "EIA-649 National Consensus Standard for Configuration Management"

Could you provide me with a better idea of what is needed to make this article more understandable / approved? I want to make sure it is incredibly helpful for anyone needing to know more about this topic.

Thanks!!

71.68.124.112 (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

We cover what others have covered. If they havent covered it, it probably is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as TRPoD says, we only cover what other sources talk about. Now, these sources don't have to be online—if there are books that provide information on this topic, they can be used as references, but information needs to exist somewhere. Wikipedia does not publish original thought, so everything you say needs to be attributed to a source. If sources don't exist, this isn't the place for your article: maybe it would be better suited to a blog of some sort.
But your draft seems to have been rejected for other reasons: "insufficient context" is a different problem. You're probably best off asking the reviewers (Sulfurboy and Timtrent) for more detail on why they declined your submission. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm struggling with Draft:EIA-649 National Consensus Standard for Configuration Management as my comment at the head says. I can't get past not being able to get to grips with what it is before even considering what others have said about it. It doesn't need to be a technical exposé on what it is in the lead, just needs to be framed so that the average bloke can understand it. Fiddle Faddle 16:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
For context setting, I would expect something like "EIA-649 National Consensus Standard for Configuration Management is a configuration management process established in YEAR by GROUPSFORMINGTHECONSENSUS to govern the processes related to XXXXX". But I still have a hard time seeing how the standard would be notable. Were there major conferences discussions that led to the development? Were there any holdouts to the "consensus"? What do the expert analysts say have been the major impacts of the standard? What have been the majore modifications over the years? What are the most notable flaws that experts discuss? Without sources covering those types of questions, you don't really have an encyclopedia article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

how to suggest new topic?

Axelgrinder (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

What is the question? Do you want an article on a topic? If so, read WP:Your first article. If not, what is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

USS Phenakite

I see the article I changed was edited, so it's good to know the editors are minding the store. This is my first time editing on Wikipedia. I see the information about the ship's 1902 drawings was deleted; this is important to the ship's eventual restoration as it is evidence of restoration work which has no line item. If I find the link at the Hagley Museum for the electronic drawings would this be acceptable? Also, the ship's wartime commander is alive, 96 and has given speaking engagements. Basically, it has a Carnegie steel hull and the ship may still have a fighting chance if the owner got it into fresh water in time. It wasn't abandoned, they just didn't have money for much more than no trespassing signs. 148.108.39.34 (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't really care what is required for the ships eventual restoration. (And I hope to god that the ship's restoration is not depending upon content from Wikipedia!) Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia article collecting what other people have written about the subject, we are not here to be a buyer's guide or owner's handbook for some product. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
With regards to links, there are 2 kinds. One that is a reliably published source which is used to verify article content and is used as part of a citation. A link to a museum page could possibly be appropriate there. The other is an external link at the bottom of the page. It is also possible, but seems to me less likely, that a link to a museum page would meet those criteria -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

photo uploading issues

I tried to insert a picture from google image (but I also tried to insert it from another page), but I did'nt succeed. So, I'm editing the article and I click on the button insert picture, a small window pops-up and I have to fill : the file name and the caption... what do I have to put in the file name ? the link from google image or what ? and if I want to crop the picture before editing it ? Thanks for answer Kushi-tolom (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kushi-tolom, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no way for Wikipedia (or any other Wikimedia project) to display an image from elsewhere. Every image must first be uploaded either to Wikimedia Commons or in some cases to Wikipedia itself. Unfortunately, because of the goal of making (almost) all of Wikipedia reusable by anybody for any purpose, we are very strict about the copyright requirements of uploaded images. In most cases, an image may be uploaded only if either it is in the public domain (usually because it is very old), or if the copyright owner has explicitly released it under a Creative Commons licence. The vast majority of pictures you find on Google (or anywhere on the Web) are subject to copyright which renders them unacceptable to Wikipedia. Unless you can track down the copyright owners, and persuade them to donate them to Wikipedia, you may not upload them or use them in an article - that is why so many articles, particularly of entertainers, do not have pictures. If you are able to take a picture of the subject yourself, you will own the copyright in that picture, and will be able to upload it. --ColinFine (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you ColinFine, for the quick and complete answer :) Kushi-tolom (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Why was my edit rejected?

I had said that there was an apocryphal story about my last name (Drown). I said it was apocryphal, so there are not going to be reliable sources. With that in mind, why was it rejected?Fr. Brendan, the Urban Monk 22:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frbrendan (talk • contribs) 18:30, 27 July 2015‎

Hello, Frbrendan, and welcome to the Teahouse. There may be no source to prove the truth of the story, but there mist at least be some source that shows that the story had some fairly wide circulation. If there is no source for it at all, it has no place in Wikipedia. Moreover, at the moment, that story is the entire content of the draft. (Currently the draft has no sources cited at all, to support anything.) Even if there was a source for this story, that would not make the name, or an individual with that name, notable. By the way, it is not yet clear what the subject of this draft will be: is it about the surname? or about a specific individual? In any case, this is far from ready to submit, and would have to be declined. You need to gather reliable sources about the subject you wish to write about, and base your draft directly on information from those sources. Content not supported by any source should not, in general, be included at all. DES (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Rejection for notability (William B. Spofford (Bishop))

I need help figuring out why my article was rejected twice. The first time I understand; it was a misunderstaning on my part. The second rejection I do not. For one thing, in response to first rejection, I provided sources that by any standard I can come up with seem reasonable. Secondly, I used the articles for the subject's peers and colleagues as models and do not see any air between them and mine. See, e.g., Anson Phelps Stokes, a colleague of Bp. Spofford's. Indeed, if you were to click on any number of the names of the bishops at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bishops_of_the_Episcopal_Church_in_the_United_States_of_America you will find, I think, that their pages are not at all dissimilar from my submission. That being said, I'm more than willing to give it another try or a couple but I require some guidance as to the defects. Thanks! Tspofford (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: I rereviewed and passed the draft since it had more references, and also because Episcopalian bishops appear to generally be notable. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Tspofford. Personally, I believe that Episcopal bishops are highly likely to be notable. However, it is your obligation as the writer of a draft article to demonstrate that notability conclusively. We have nearly five million articles, and experienced editors agree that many of them should be deleted. So, pointing out that other poorly referenced articles may exist is not a persuasive argument for accepting your article. It may lead to deletion of the other articles you mentioned. Instead, I recommend strengthening the sourcing of your draft. Let me give an example: One of your references has a title "Washington Post article about Bishop Spofford's appointment". This is not the proper way to cite a source. Instead, the exact title that the Washington Post used should be in the reference. You also use an obituary in the New York Times that shows all the signs of being a paid obituary submitted by family and associates, as opposed to coverage written by a staff writer for that newspaper. The Episcopal Church source may be reliable but will not be considered as independent by many editors. You need to emphasize truly independent reliable sources, and cite them properly. Surely, the solid and reliable newspapers and magazines of Eastern Oregon must have covered Spofford in great detail during his years there. Those are the type of sources that establish notability convincingly to a reviewer, especially when they are cited properly. Please read Referencing for beginners and take to heart its wise advice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

How can I change the title of our page?

I am the secretary for an international women's motorcycle organization "Women in the Wind". We found that a wikipedia page was created by a user named "Bridge Boy" a few years ago but the title of our organization is incorrect as he listed us as a Motorcycle Club (which we are NOT and can get us into trouble if "MC" is used). Past officers of the organization have tried to have the title of the page changed but it hasn't worked. I tried to contact Bridge Boy but he has been suspended. How can we change the title? My apology if this is the wrong department to ask this question. If someone can help, it would really be appreciated! The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Wind_(motorcycle_club)Witwsecretary (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Witwsecretary (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Witwsecretary: Hi, after reading the question, I just stopped by to check Women in the Wind (motorcycle club) and found "As a note, Women in the Wind is not a motorcycle club "MC" and it has tried to have the title on this page corrected numerous times." in the main space article added by you. It is advisable to keep all the discussions on the talkpage of the article. I already did the same for you. Some other editor will soon answer regarding Change of title Cheers! Peppy Paneer (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To change a page title, you need to be an autoconfirmed user (have an account with 10 edits that is at least 4 days old). The function is called "moving" a page.
I've moved the page from Women in the Wind (motorcycle club) to Women in the Wind (organization) at your request. Usually, articles don't need anything in brackets at all and we'd just call the page "Women in the Wind", but in this case there is already a movie by the name Women in the Wind, so we have to find a way to discern between the two pages. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 08:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Witwsecretary. The title of the Wikipedia article about your organisation needs something in parenthesis to distinguish the subject from other things called Women in the Wind. If you want to suggest a change, please do so on the talk page Talk:Women in the Wind (motorcycle club); but whatever it used is not claimed to be part of the name of the organisation, but simply a way that a reader searching can identify which article is which: perhaps '(motorcycle organization)' would work. Either way, you should not be editing the article directly (or moving it, which is how the title gets changed) because of your Conflict of interest. Please be aware that it is not your page, and you and your organisation have no control whatever over its content: you are welcome to make suggestions for changes to it (preferably with reliable published sources), but you should leave it to uninvolved editors to make those changes. (If it happens that there are few people looking at the talk page, so you get no response, please add the template {{edit request}} to the talk page, to put it on the list of articles awaiting edits).
One more thing: Wikipedia does not allow accounts to have names which suggest that they are editing on behalf of an organisation, or that they might be used by different people in a role. Please create an account which is personal to you (you do not have to use your real name, and you are free to have 'witw' as part of the name if you wish, as long as the name doesn't suggest that you are editing on behalf of the organisation). --ColinFine (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
BTW the two pages Women in the Wind and Women in the Wind (organization) need hatnote links pointing to each other. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I wish someone had reached out to us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling. We have had this come up many, many times, particularly with Patriot Guard Riders, and some other clubs. Mainstream sources call motorcycle clubs motorcycle clubs. If you're a member of the outlaw motorcycle club subculture, then there is a special politically correct set of rules describing MCs (outlaw motorcycle clubs), riding clubs, brand clubs, and "organizations". The only point of which is to respect the imaginary territory that outlaw clubs illegally assert control over. Some people imagine that if media like Wikipedia call Women in the Wind a "motorcycle club", the Hells Angels will come beat us all up. Or beat up the club. Or somebody. Nobody has ever presented a shred of evidence for this claim. Regardless, Wikipedia policy says we follow our sources without editorializing or adding our own spin.

Over at Talk:Women in the Wind (motorcycle club)#Motorcycle club I've listed 10 citations showing that they are called a "motorcycle club" by reputable books, magazines and newspapers, because those words describe, in plain English, what Women in the Wind is. The article outlaw motorcycle club does have a rundown of subculture jargon, but that jargon doesn't apply to the whole universe. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Shortening redundant information in references?

Thanks, again, for all the helpful advice last month about my first Wikipedia article.

Writing my second article has gone much more smoothly, but I'm still having template troubles with a few references for this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Minoru_Kamata

As you can see, References #1, 2, 3, 11, and 14 are all taken from the exact same book and page. Number 1 is fine, but how can I shorten References 2, 3, 11, and 14? I tried removing some of the template-generated text, but I then got a red-letter error message saying some fields were lacking.

Also, is there anything else stylistically incorrect that I should fix while waiting for the article to be reviewed? I'd like to see this article approved.

Thanks. EditWikiJapan (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! The trick is to name references. Basically, the first time you reference the page in the book, you write inside the reference tag <ref name="some intelligent mnemonic"><nowiki> Then you can just reuse it by typing <nowiki><ref name="some intelligent mnemonic" /> without any content or closing tag. I have done it for you on the draft. Have a look. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
On other stylistic notes, first of all, the draft probably needs more links to other articles. Also, if you could break up the Life and Work section, that might make it easier to read. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, EditWikiJapan. The draft looks much improved. Additional 3rd party sources couldn't hurt, but I think there are enough. Translating titles of works and articles in the refs, and translating titles of the works in the Books section would help a bit, if possible. Are there any reviews of his books or films that could be cited and quoted? DES (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with the references and for fixing things on the actual page.

The other suggestions are very useful, too. I'm making another trip to a nearby library this afternoon to track down a few book references, and I'll add what I find. EditWikiJapan (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

How to deal with selflinks?

Hej, I wonder what to do in case of a selflink? For Example, 'Brannigans' (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KP_Snacks&oldid=665157210) redirected to 'KP Snacks', while the article 'KP Snacks' included a link to 'Brannigans'. A similar example would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(novel_series) , where 'Daemon' is both the title of the two-part novel series and the first novel.Yoshee (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC) edit: I corrected the second link Yoshee (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yoshee
Help:Self link#Indirect self links describes the situation, but not what to do about it.
Leaving an indirect self link as a green-link (assuming your preferences are so set) is slightly annoying as the page reloads, but you are back where you started, and wondering what has gone wrong. I think the easiest answer is not to link at all, as with KP Nuts in the list in the KP Snacks article you are referring to.
Although clever, I am not convinced about your method of piping a link to the non-existent article No redirect, as if such an article is ever created (it could be the title of a film or book in the future) it will be far more confusing when clicking Brannigans to end up there. - Arjayay (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Arjayay, I found it confusing too to be linked "back". I changed it because if one sees a blue link one expects more information behing that link, but now that I found the other (Daemon) example, I wonder about the general rule... I fixed the link to the Daemon article above. Could you please have a look and suggest a solution? Should there be no link to the first novel at all? btw: green link== blue link ?Yoshee (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Yoshee. I'm not a Teahouse regular but I was browsing and I saw this and thought I might comment. The thing about Daemon is that there is only one article, which is named Daemon (novel series) but appears to be primarily about the first novel. Compare Twilight (series) and Twilight (novel) which are separate articles. I recommend moving Daemon (novel series) back to Daemon (novel), and just saying in the intro that there was a sequel, Freedom™. There doesn't seem to be very much to say about the series as a series, so I don't think it needs its own article. If I'm wrong about the article being primarily about the first novel, and the "Plot" section is actually the plot of the two novels, then I would take out whatever is in Freedom™, because that will be in the other article (or if it isn't it could be merged in). Scolaire (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello again Yoshee. I see we have two articles; Daemon (novel series) and Freedom™, The opening line of Daemon states that it is a "two-part novel" not a "novel series". As Daemon (quite correctly IMHO) redirects to Demon (disambiguation) we cannot just have Daemon, so I agree with Scolaire it should be moved back to Daemon (novel), which then makes sense of the "Two part novel" description, and there is nothing to say about "the series" as there is no "series", just a two part novel.
Returning to KP Snacks I see someone else has removed the indirect self-link to Brannigans, but then someone else has added links to KP Nuts - to quote from WP:Red link "It is useful ... to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable" I cannot see people rushing to create these articles, whilst the one article that did exist, on Brannigans, was deleted for lack of notability, so these redlinks seem to fail both criteria, and should simply be removed. - Arjayay (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

mistake

On Lamy#Ink, I accidentally removed a reference and I have no idea how to revert this on mobile. This question will probably also end up at the bottom, but I can't remember how to prevent that. Sorry. Thanks, Rubbish computer 18:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: It's fine. I've moved your question to the correct place, although I wonder: Shouldn't the "Ask a question" button work for you on mobile? I've never tried it on an actual mobile device before, so I wouldn't know about that...
Also, if I'm correct, I believe there isn't really a way to revert changes on mobile—at least for users who only have autoconfirmed permissions (like me). You might have to do it manually. I could be wrong. CabbagePotato (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@CabbagePotato: Thanks. The button works but places new questions at the bottom. Rubbish computer 19:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@Rubbish computer: That makes sense to me now. When I use mobile view on my desktop, clicking the button brings up the actual "New section" page (like the one you see for talk pages on desktop view) instead of a smaller "pop-up" box with a similar form (as it displays on desktop). I guess you'll have to add new Teahouse questions to the top manually on mobile using the "Edit" button for the "lede" (the one at the top). CabbagePotato (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  Done Fixed it. Rubbish computer 11:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Help for New Article

I need help with my article because it has been deleted several times for lack of sources and references. My article is about a well known company throughout the Americas that promotes services of valuations and appraisals for major companies and has considerable impact on the financial market and the stock exchange. The company has been asked many times about our background and our operation therefore I consider the article is of public interest. The company is registered with ASA - American Society of Appraisers, RICS - Royal Society of Chartered Surveyors, Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc... . Our services are described on wikipedia, as: appraisals, valuations, software, therefore we have valid links in the article. So, I need help to construct the article in the way wikipedia will not delete the article again. If anyone can help it will be highly appreciated.Joao Carlos Papaleo Mynarski (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You have a clear conflict of interest here so you are strongly advised not to attempt to create the article as you will find it almost impossible to maintain the necessary neutral point of view and you will be very frustrated if you attempt to do so. "Public interest" is not one of our inclusion criteria. Please read the following pages for further assistance: WP:COI, WP:CORP, WP:RS and WP:SPAM. Draft is located at User:Joao Carlos Papaleo Mynarski/sandbox --ukexpat (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

archives - date of contributions

Hi there, there are these bots that archive talk pages after 3 months of no activity in a thread. How can I as a user see when contributors posted their comment on a talk page? (This question refers to when they forgot to give a date - especially in Wikipedia's early days, editors did not sign their comments properly or add a timestamp). Thank you Elisanne (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Elisanne: I think the page history contains the information you're looking for. For instance, I can use the page history of this page to see when your post was made. In theory, all edits should be either (a) signed by the user or (b) signed automatically by a bot, but if neither of these is true then the page history will contain the time of the post. However, if the page you're looking at is an archive, this won't work – for instance, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 366 only shows one edit made by a bot. You'd have to look at the original talk page the archive was from to see when a post was made.
If this doesn't answer your question, could you please post a link to the page(s) you're looking at? — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Doppelganger account

When should an editor create a doppelganger account, I have no idea. I know what a doppelganger is. TeaLover1996 (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, TeaLover1996. The idea behind a doppelganger account is to prevent impersonation. Let's say for the sake of discussion that some bitter hateful troll takes a dislike to you. Let's also assume that this particular troll is known to create Wikipedia accounts with names very similar to existing well-known user names, for the purpose of harassing or embarrassing people. You might be a bit miffed if an account called "TeaLover1995" started posting neo-Nazi propaganda. To pre-empt this, you could create "TeaLover1995" yourself, to prevent the troll from controlling it. That would be a valid use of a doppelganger account. The problem, of course, is that you need to claim every single plausible variation on your user name, and that is hard to do.
A month or two ago, a "hater" created an account with my user name, plus a string of insults against me. No way could I create enough doppelgangers to protect against this. Far easier and more productive to just ignore fools and trolls. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Another option for dealing with fools and trolls who do impersonation/hater usernames is to report them to wp:UAA as they show up. From experience, it is a very efficient and drama-free process. I agree with Cullen, though, it's often best to deal with trolls as they come rather than pre-emptively. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Doppelganger accounts are usually only worth making if you're a very active user and/or have made enemies with a lot of trolls, and if there are a few specific variations of your username a troll would register names under. WP:DOPPELGANGER briefly explains what they are but in your case, it's not worth making probably one. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
It is not only "protection from trolling", just potential confusion as well. For example, since I go by an initialization of my actual user name, I may want to register the initialization so that some other potential editor , say Tammy Roland Pearson of Dallas, doesnt try to make the account TRPoD. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Moved TRPoD's comment to correct section — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_367&oldid=1142564660"