Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 445

Archive 440

←

Archive 443

Archive 444

Archive 445

Archive 446

Archive 447

→

Archive 450

Draft: Henri Hauser and Henri Hauser

I reviewed Draft: Henri Hauser and declined it as being about the same person as Henri Hauser. I observed that the draft was much better than the article; but AFC is not a procedure to replace an existing article with a new improved article about the same person. User:Atalante88 then expanded the article and resubmitted it, and it was declined by reviewer User:Onel5969 because it duplicates an existing article. User:Atalante88 then posted: Dear Robert, I carefully reviewed my draft Henri Hauser I made many corrections, added many precisions, references and links and then I submitted my version and it was declined once again by because a current article Henri Hauser was existing. But, this current one is full of mistakes such as Henri Hauser is an agrarian that he is not at all, this is Walter Hauser. Many great steps of his influential life are missing. I really don't understand that someone can write such a poor quality article and mine was made with a lot of research and readings, it took a huge time and someone can refuse just for this poor reason without any reading of my version. You refer keep an incorrect article and decline mine ? I could admit that my article could be still improved or request an assistance but declining without taking into account the quality of the contents is incredible... At least, does someone read the draft article at the end ? I did an honest article and someone who obviously know nothing about HH can keep his article ? Thank you beforehand for providing an understandable explanation. Atalante88Atalante88 (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

So my question to other experienced editors is what is the best procedure to help the author move the submitted article forward. Basically, Articles for Creation has always been for the creation of articles, not for the improvement of articles by normal editing, nor the replacement of articles. The usual advice to class projects is to edit the articles via the edit process. However, the issue here is an existing draft, still needing a lot of work, but already much better than the existing article. I can see several ways that may be either in order or marginally in order. First, Atalante88 or someone else can do a copy-and-paste, replacing the entire article in one copy, with an edit summary of replace article. What do we do, and what do we advise Atalante88? Second, the existing article can be deleted to make way for replacement. If so, by which of the three procedures? Third, an RFC can be used to ask whether to replace the existing article with a draft. On the one hand, the AFC declines were correct. On the other hand, AFC shouldn’t block replacement of the article. What do we do? Also, can someone please explain to User:Atalante88, preferably in French, on their talk page, that we do understand their concern and we are just figuring out how to improve the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon - and thanks for the ping. Based on the results at AfD, I think the only way is to edit the current article. The question then becomes, what is the best method? The easiest way is to do a wholesale cut and paste, which, while easier, I would not recommend. The original article was created back in 2006, and other than minor infrequent tweaks, has been virtually unchanged until this past December, when Atalante88 took an interest in it. So you might simply be bold and do that. If no one has an issue with it, your good. If they do, then Atalante can begin to go through the article section by section and edit it. This is by no means the first time this issue has come up at AfC. There have been several that I've been involved in where the draft is much better than the mainspace article, and the editor simply begins to edit the current article. With the changes Atalante has already made, I don't see an issue with simply cutting and pasting the stuff from his draft and replacing what is currently there. However, I wouldn't put the lengthy literary list in, and there are large issues of formatting both the literary sources and the references. The references in the current article are well formatted. And I think that the cited material in the current article would need to stay. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've replaced the body of the article in a single paste. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Not wise to have done that before sorting out the referencing. The new text has heaps of misplaced external links but not footnotes. Those should have been sorted out before replacing the old, properly referenced, article. See the reply from User:onel5969 before yours. - David Biddulph (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Robert No need an explaination in French I fully understand your concern about what could be the best method to publish my article. But the current article on Henri Hauser contains many errors. At the beginning, I tried to expand the current article and it was reverted, then I put it in my sandbox and it was declined twice. So, it could seem weird to propose me to expand once again the current article. I would not appreciate to work once again in this article and then it would be reverted again. I think this is a huge work to write a correct article and anyone can easily quickly decline or revert it. Thank you for your consideration and hope you will soon find a good solution for Draft-Henri-Hauser . Atalante88Atalante88 (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Atalante88: Thank you for your efforts. The reason for the reversion of your previous changes to the current article was that your new material contained no references at all. You need to realise that a fundamental principle of Wikipedia is verifiability, and that material needs to be supported by references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. The need for references was explained in maintenance tags on the article, in edit summaries, and in a message on your user talk page. If your new material is based on published material, then it will be a welcome addition to the Wikipedia article, but if it is based entirely on original research of your own then it belongs somewhere other than Wikipedia. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a real mess now after Robert McClenon's cut and paste merge. I have re-directed Draft:Henri Hauser to Henri Hauser to preserve the attribution history. Atalante88, please continue to make improvements directly to Henri Hauser. Do not work on the draft as it will make an eventual history merge virtually impossible. Voceditenore (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Voceditenore. What is the procedure to do a history merge after a cut and paste job? Is it an admin toolbox thing?

Also, Robert McClenon there is a template you need to put on the Talk pages of the target and source. It is called {{copied}} and is a bit tricky to fill out. Do a lot of previews and right-click open-page-in-new-tab page-views until the template parameters are solid. You can click on the template link in this reply to see the parameters you need to use. Let me know if I can assist. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Checkingfax. A history merge needs to be done by an administrator (which I'm not). However, it is sometimes not possible to do one if both the original and the target have been edited simultaneously, as I suspect is the case here. An administrator would have to assess that at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. In cases where a history merge is no longer possible, the original must be kept as a redirect to provide attribution. This is why I have re-directed Draft:Henri Hauser to Henri Hauser and tagged it with {{R from merge}} to prevent deletion. As for {{copied}}, it doesn't seem to work with cross-namespace merges, i.e. Draft to Article. I've tried Voceditenore (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"Key facts" section

Hello Teahouse,

Are there any guidelines on Wikipedia for an article's "Key facts" section, or was that just something the editor of Euphoria (Indian_band)#Key facts made up? Regarding that article, I don't know how to otherwise sort that information. If you could look it over or suggest a better format for the information in that section, that'd help.

Thanks, all Mechanic1c (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a poorly structured article in many ways. The whole article needs a complete re-organisation, and likely a lot of the non-referenced material to be removed. The article should have a "history" section, perhaps with subsections for different periods in the band's history. A "band members" section should list the band's lineup, and could have perhaps some of the "key facts" information included within it. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes

Why aren't more pages protected under the pending changes feature? 92.10.226.159 (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi 92.10.226.159 and welcome to the Wikipedia Teahouse. Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia that anybody can edit". If pages were locked down with protection that would not be the case. Pending Changes is one of the harshest protections short of full-protection and is only reserved for the nearly worst of the worst. Many pages are overdue from being unchained from Pending Changes as their Pending Changes status has been going on so long that it is untested if they could survive without the PC protection. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: To offer another perspective, I frequently cast an eye over the site-wide pending changes, and the queue is typically quite small and I don't think I've seen anything go past 24 hours (and rare it would go that long). I think it's a useful alternative to traditional protection, as people can still edit and contribute quite freely. At the lower level it just doesn't get published until a reviewer accepts the changes, or an autoconfirmed person makes a change. At the upper level (not widely used, as far as I know), it's reviewer and admin only for publishing. If the pages were semi-protected, IPs and new people would not be able to even submit edits through the normal interface. For high profile, frequently targeted articles, it seems like an excellent way to completely deny immediate publishing of unconstructive edits. I.e. it helps stop Wikipedia making the headlines for the wrong reasons. Anyone can edit, it is just publishing that is restricted to people with a more proven record. It's entirely possible that there should be a big discussion around its use, possibly a regular review process for pages using the feature, I'm not denying that (and equally I'm not calling for it, just leaving that door unlocked for others to open). Murph9000 (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes can work better than semi-protection, as the genuine editor can make very detailed or multiple changes, which would be very difficult to explain in a semi-protected edit request, whilst the vandal is frustrated by not seeing the result of their "handiwork". To amplify User:Murph9000's point - there are currently 16 pending changes at Special:PendingChanges the oldest of which is only 12 hours old, whereas there are 37 Semi-protected edit requests the oldest of which is 29 days old. The difficult call is, balancing the work created by vandalism, against the work created by numerous pending changes or semi-protected requests.
The problem is deciding which articles are just subject to random vandalism, e.g. a bored schoolkid, and which to more organized, long term, problems. Many articles have dual protection - short-term semi-protection and longer term pending changes, which gives a "feel" for what might happen if the pending changes are removed.- Arjayay (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear (Arjayay—Murph9000—92.10.226.159) Right now there are 8013 pending changes reviewers to step on the ants. Yes, usually PC protected pages only stay in the PC queue for a few minutes. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 13:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Checkingfax - "As of 1 August 2014, there were approximately 1.4 million autoconfirmed users on English Wikipedia" (I can't find a more recent figure) all of whom can answer a semi-protected edit request. So I wonder why, with well over 200 times as many potential editors, do semi-protected edit requests have a larger, and very much longer, backlog? - Arjayay (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Arjayay: Could be that 1.399 million either don't know about the semi request queue, or are scared to touch it, or are inactive.  ;-) Murph9000 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Murph9000 and Arjayay:Speaking for myself I made it easy by putting a clickable link at the top of every page that takes me right to the Pending Changes queue. I check it a few times a day, whereas I don't go looking for semi-protected edit requests, but maybe I will get in the habit. Looks like this on top of every page for me:

Checkingfax | 0 | 0 | Talk | Sandbox | Preferences | Beta | Watchlist | Pending changes | Contributions | Log out

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 14:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Yeah, good idea. Now, for bonus credit, retrieve the queue size and age via the API and display that as well.  ;-) Murph9000 (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Company Advertisement?

Can someone with more experience take a look at Enders Analysis? To me, it looks mostly like an advertisement. Many of the sources are the companies own website. Most of the others are just trivial mentions of the company. There are no links to it except one in a list of companies based in England. I think it should be flagged with {advert} and {Orphan} and maybe some others, or possibly nominated for deletion? According to the history, there appears to have been some review when it was created by {Wikipedia:AFC}MB (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MB. I agree with your assessment. I looked at about half the sources, several of which look impressive at first glance. But very brief passing mentions in the New York Times or The Economist or the Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times do not establish notability. We need significant coverage, which provides context and detail about the company as a topic, instead of just briefly mentioning the company while quoting one of their reports. So, please feel free to try to improve the article (always the first choice), or to tag the article if you see no easy path to improvement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not interested in improving this article myself; I have many other projects I would like to work on. I was looking for guidance on what tags would be appropriate {advert}, {orphan}, {notability}, {refimprov}, etc. or if even it should be nominated for deletion.MB (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Pings and alerts

Not sure if this has to do with editing but here goes.

When and how should pings be used?

Also, are users notified when something is added to their Talk page?

-- JamesPoulson (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello again James. Pings are used to notify a user of a reply on a talk page. Also yes, they are notified. I responded to you on my TP recently, did you get my message? Kindest regards, Chesnaught (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Chesnaught555: <= So this would be a correct use :)? Yes, I read your message. Thanks for getting back to me. --JamesPoulson (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

JamesPoulson Indeed! Chesnaught (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Wilhering College

I reviewed Draft: Wilhering College and declined it as needing more independent third-party sources, saying that it was probably notable but that its notability needed to be verifiable. User:Jean Eti replied on my talk page, saying: “Thank you for reviewing Wilhering College. I forgot to mention, that my article is based on the German Version of "Stiftsgymnasium Wilhering". The notability has never been doubted there. Unfortunately I technically cannot cite an article that would proof its notability very well. The archive of nachrichten.at, the website of the well-known (in Upper-Austria) OÖNachrichten, doesn't allow links. However, this site calls the school "renowned". What shall I do?” The draft has now been resubmitted with additional references and is waiting for re-review. I would comment that any German-language sources may be used in addition to English sources. I don’t understand the comment that nachrichten.at doesn’t allow links. Can other editors comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Jean Eti. Normally in English "notable" does mean something close to "famous" or "renowned"; but it has a special meaning in English Wikipedia, which has very little to do with renown. If a source unconnected with the school has writted about it and called it renowned this might help, but only if that is in the course of a substantial piece of writing - a mere mention, even describing it as "famous", would not help.

I too don't understand the comment about OÖNachrichte; but even if there is some reason why it cannot be linked, references do not need to be online, as long as sufficient bibilographic information is given so that a reader can in principle find the resource. --ColinFine (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

As you have written, I have added the source nachrichten.at without giving the exact link (which I can't give, as this article can only be opened by users who are logged in and even then without link (really strange, the title has to be typed in the search box, then it works), but anyway, the article was published in the printed edition, this must be enough). I hope that the sources that I have added give sufficient information about the notability of Wilhering College. Thank you very much for your help! Jean Eti (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

How do I delete previous image upload ? How many pixels are too much ?

Hi,

Scroll down for the actual question; I recently scanned a few rare CDs artworks of mine, and thought I could help by uploading them on Wikipedia, considering only bad quality uploads are currently online;

I only did it for the "Live in Anaheim" CD by Simple Plan, but I believe I went "overkill" on image resolution, so I restored the previous revision, although it did not, obviously, deleted my previous upload;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Live_in_Anaheim.jpg

I did read on the first upload photo (too late): The copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original cover. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable as artwork on pirate versions or other uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original artwork.

So that would mean my upload resolution is too high, and so can we delete my last upload?

I would be more than happy about updating a few photos from other CDs of this artist, as these photos are already uploaded, but only in bad quality you can barely see the artwork. I own the original media, and scanned these artworks and done color correction in Photoshop later on.

Although, how much pixels is too much, since we also want to prevent piracy? Is 500x500 pixels considering "small" and so 750x750 considering "too big" ?

I would say 500x500 is the way to go, since Wikipedia is NOT some sort of "artworks archive" (And we want to respect Copyright too) but just an encyclopedia ?

Thanks for confirming GameX2 (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't find the reference at the moment, but fair use for album covers normally requires < 300 Px on one side, whereas Infobox album cover needs > 200 Px. Most retailers, e.g. Amazon, use 240 x 240 or 250 x 250, which are ideal, so most people just copy one of those - Arjayay (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Samuel F. Hodge & Company, adding website links, changing file info of image

Hi. I have made edits to the Samuel F. Hodge & Company page and added website links. I don't believe I added the links correctly and would appreciate help on how to do so. I also added images from my collection but erred in the file title. There was one image that had appeared in the Magazine for Western History but all images uploaded have that file title. I did something wrong, apparently, and don't know how to correct. I did leave a statement on the image Discussion that I had made the error. I am new to Wikipedia editing.Ladycamera (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Title change for article -- how to do it or how to recommend?

How do I recommend (or go ahead and make change myself) a title change for an article? I made a comment on the Talk page for that article, but no response so far. Here's the article and my comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thermal_management_of_electronic_devices_and_systems

Thanks!

Apspowerengineer (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Apspowerengineer, and welcome to the Teahouse. The best thing to do is to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. If you do that, your proposed move will be listed in a centralised discussion, rather than only on the talk page of an article that might not be watched by many editors. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I replied at the article talkpage, Talk:Thermal_management_of_electronic_devices_and_systems already, but I'll post here as well. Thermal management already exists as a disambiguation page, so I doubt people would accept the move. You can try if you want though, by following the above. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how you can shorten the title without causing problems. Why should your particular field of interest take precedence? Dbfirs 19:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't propose that "my field of interest" take precedence over anything (not sure what made you think that?). Instead, I think it would be better organized to have one article titled "Thermal Management". The other articles about this topic are, in fact, also about "Thermal Management of electronic devices and systems." The other two articles including "Thermal Management" in the title are about thermal management of LEDs and spacecraft, both of which are electronic devices. And actually, the spacecraft article redirects to a more accurate page about Thermal Control. So, let's just make one article about Thermal Management with various types of devices and their cooling needs.

Apspowerengineer (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, Apspowerengineer. The other articles are already quite well developed and significant in their own right, with significantly different issues and mechanisms to discuss. High power LEDs have quite different thermal management issues to general electronics, and quite different methods to address them. I don't see a strong synergy between the two topics. N.B. you are now talking about a WP:MERGE, not a move / rename. I see it as not broken, therefore I oppose attempts to fix it. You are naturally welcome to propose a merge, but I really can't see it being likely to get consensus approval. Murph9000 (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

A. C. C. Cigars page

Just wanted to say thank you for the information and feedback on the article. I think I have a better understanding of the way to craft the article for this cigar manufacturer and will be making changes for a hopeful approval.

19:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaschaIllyvich (talk • contribs) 19:58, 25 January 2016‎ (UTC)

context & abilitly to describe

how can i describe a concept of a mechanical & mythikcal & spiritual -philisophilcal circumstance- that is -not- at all well documented-yet- at my desk - & bring to light misconceptions about things i know i can set right , but due to "vierifiable" criteria cannot do so , no matter how i word it..:? or my lack of ability to o so.:? Eavere (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Eavere. If the concept of the "ruling ring" has not been written about in reliable sources, then it cannot be covered in Wikipedia. Maybe you can write about it in Facebook. —teb728 t c 21:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

vadalism infomation traffic light.

I have placed a vandalism information traffic light on my My UserPage however it is to connected correctly, could someone tell me where I'm going wrong please. Best regards.Hot Pork Pie 20:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I've gone ahead and fixed it for you. The issue was that you were just copying the static code of the template which doesn't update as the template merely displays the current information as it is updated by a bot at the central Template:Vandalism Information. Hope that helps. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

it does indeed, thank-you very much @Winner 42: much appreciated. Best Regards. Hot Pork Pie 21:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Simple edit rejected as spam, yet is factual

Hello, I'm trying this for the first time, and wanted to get my "feet wet" so to speak, editing a factually incorrect part on my company's Wikipedia page. I work for Afilias, a company that helps the Internet function, and we recently went from being "Afilias Limited" to "Afilias, PLC" as we changed our Irish incorporation. I went in to update the page from Afilias Limited to Afilias PLC and it was rejected. Any reason why this accurate change was automatically rejected? The page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afilias

Thanks for your help! Brett954 (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Brett954, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits were reverted by ClueBot NG, which, as the name suggests, is a bot rather than a person. I reckon that what triggered the bot to think that your contributions were vandalism probably wasn't the change you describe here, but rather this edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Brett954: When bots revert suspicious edits, they revert all edits by the same editor without intervening edits by the other editors, assuming they have the same intent. So the bot reverted both of your edits. I have reasserted your plc edit. —teb728 t c 22:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

How to add musician page

How can i add new musician wikipedia Page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpoo Peleha (talk • contribs) 21:18, 25 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Hello, Mpoo Peleha. Rather than typing a long answer, I direct you to the suggestions I made at #Company Pages below. That was about a company rather than a musician; and you might not have a conflict of interest (though if you are the musician or are associated with them, you have one); but otherwise the advice I give there is the same I would give you. --ColinFine (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Three questions to learn more...help, please!

Hello teahouse advisers, I wrote my first article in Weekipedia just three weeks ago [Nemetics], and I think I have already received all the red flags possible. It's somehow embarrassing, but I'm really learning a lot: thanks for the feedback and the comments to everyone who has been there. - Special thanks to Snowdeed, for his enormous patience with all this! At this particular moment, I received a proposal for deletion (and I understand why, just seeing the final collective result of the added collaborations. It's worse, now!)

But I still have three questions, for any expert editor:

1- How or where can I send the "author's permission" of an image? I inserted two images mentioning this permission, but they were erased anyway.

2- How can I undo an external edition on the original text? Is there a tutorial for "Hitory" page? Some of the erased references needed a change of URL, but were legitimate published sources (for example: Dena, C. (2009), Transmedia Practice: Theorising the Practice of Expressing a Fictional World across Distinct Media and Environments. University of Sydney... it was pointing to a pdf in a dropbox, and it should be pointing to a pdf at CIRET, instead. But the full paragraph about tansmedia was erased, and all sources disappeared)

3- How can I see the discussion on "nomination for deletion"? I just see the list of changes in the History page... is there another page to see the debate? Can I participate and give my reasons? Some of the alerts are not correct, and I think I can solve them with more information. I appreciate some help in here! my next entry will be better, I promise! :-) NewsNeus (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@NewsNeus: With regard to the deletion discussion, it is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemetics. The discussion is linked from the articles for deletion notices at the top of Nemetics and on your user talk page. —teb728 t c 22:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

My comment on the deletion discussion is simply that I don't understand the article at all. My issue isn't with the references. I haven't checked them. I don't understand the article at all. Just because text is in good syntactical English doesn't mean that it conveys an overall understanding to an English reader. Unfortunately, I consider the article to be incomprehensible. That is my comment. I don't understand it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, NewsNeus. Your question has come out formatted oddly because you started lines with spaces - that's what happens whenever you start with a space. To answer your questions:

1. If the copyright holder of an image is willing to license it under a suitable licence (which will allow anybody to use it for any purpose, including commercially: permission just for Wikipedia is not enough), they (not you) should follow the procedure in donating copyright materials.
2. I don't entirely understand this question. You can look at any version in the history by picking it; and it is possible to save that version as the new one, but this will overwrite any changes that have been made since, so it is not usually a good idea. To restore part of an older version, I suggest opening that version in another browser tab, editing it, and copying the relevant content from the edit window to the edit window of the current version.
3. In the notice at the top of Nemetics, there is a line "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page." in which "this article's entry" is blue, showing that it is a link to the deletion discussion. --ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers, Robert McClenon and ColinFine!

Both helpful! :-))

NewsNeus (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I reviewed Draft:HighVolMusic

I reviewed Draft:HighVolMusic and declined it as needing more references to the subject’s notability. User:WRC3 then asked me the following: “Hi Robert, My article submission for my company was not approved citing my references do not adequately show the subject's notability. I am not sure I fully understand then what type of references are needed to provide significant coverage about the subject COI(HighVolMusic) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I have looked at 3 of our competitors Wiki pages and essentially mirrored what they have done using our own data and press that is on the internet about it. Are you able to assist me so that I can get our article approved? Thank you, Bill Chavis” I hadn’t understood, until this question was asked, that this is a conflict of interest article. The real problem that I have now is that it is clear that the author doesn’t understand Wikipedia, because he refers to “our competitors”. The author doesn’t seem to understand that Wikipedia takes a very dim view of any mindset that articles about a corporation belong to the corporation. Can someone either give the author friendly advice on how to write a COI draft that is properly sourced and doesn’t look COI, up to our standards, or not to write a COI draft at all? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried asking your questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation? I think there might be more expertise about AfC procedures and processes there. Of course, if anyone here wants to respond, that's great! I just noticed that you have a lot of questions about AFC matters and not general editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

{User:Liz - Maybe I wasn't clear in my questions. I wasn't asking for AFC advice for myself, but for an AFC author, and I have found that AFC authors get better advice here than at AFC talk (even though that is one of the places that they are advised they can go for review. I didn't think that I needed advice in whether this was a COI article, especially after the author referred to "his competitors". I was asking for advice for the author. My own advice would be not to try to submit COI drafts, but that is my own advice. Some reviewers are more friendly than I am about being willing to help COI editors clean up their drafts. I didn't see evidence of notability, and I personally don't think that I have an obligation to help find evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

We did read the COI info. And to clarify the article was written by the publicist of our company I posted it under my account. Secondly, to again clarify, we looked at some competitors that have published pages to see what specific information was included and then we did the same. Who would know more about a successful company then the person who built it? The references used is info published by other sources to verify what was stated. I am looking for help to get the article posted. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WRC3 (talk • contribs)

You say that the article was written by the publicist of your company. Many inexperienced editors and many publicists don't understand that writing for Wikipedia is not like writing publicity. The focus must be on neutrality, not on promotion. Your draft was less promotional and more nearly neutral than many COI drafts that I have seen, just inadequately sourced. However, not every company is notable, and there may not be available independent third-party sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

hello WRC3, you may actually get more help at WP:COMPANIES. Currently I see that the article lacks proper references from reliable sources. Each 'fact' asserted needs to be supported by a suitable reference. Also, company articles are scrutinized more for WP:NPOV and WP:ADVERT. You will need to work on the tone as well to avoid getting under the scanner. Hope this helps to improve the next version.Devopam (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi WRC3. Please note that tying to compare your page with "your competitors' " pages, is not a valid argument at Wikipedia - please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for the explanation.
We know that, in our over 5 Million articles, there are poorly written ones, but we aim to copy the best, not the worst. Find a similar article at List of Good Articles or even List of featured articles and base your article on that.
Very few editors can write an article about something they are involved in from a neutral point of view, which is one reason we try to dissuade people with a confliuct of interest, like you have, from editing such articles. - Arjayay (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I will expand on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that your competitors have articles doesn't meant that you should, but it doesn't mean that they should. Maybe they shouldn't. Maybe no one has yet bothered to to nominate them for deletion. Some of our articles are crap. That doesn't mean that more crap is encouraged. It means that we should get rid of some of the crap. (It is true that reasonable Wikipedians can disagree on what is crap.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for the feedback. I understand that great informational content is key at Wikipedia with verifiable content. Again the point trying to be made was that before we started to write our article we reviewed similar companies in the same business that have published pages. What content they included, what references. With that info in hand our article was written and submitted yet not approved. HighVolMusic is an independent record label not covered by mainstream media yet in the our field we are known and have worked with several well known artists. There is press on the company so I am not sure what exactly is clarified as verifiable references or if our article was not written by a "neutral" party. Our article isn't fluff or biased its a time table of facts. We've gotten many links of info to read making it all the more confusing. We will go back today and work on the article. If there is someone who can assist me in getting our article approved it is greatly appreciated. I want nothing more than our page to be accurate for those who read it giving insight in to our company. Thank you.

You write that you aren't covered by mainstream media. That may indicate a lack of notability. You say that there is press on your company. Is that neutral trade press on the music industry? If so, that may establish notablity. If it is your own press releases, it doesn't establish notability. Not every independent record label is notable. I thank you for trying to comply with our policies and guidelines, but sometimes a subject isn't notable. In any case, you do have a conflict of interest. At least, you are now asking rather than tediously resubmitting. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Recommendations to remove advertisementness of Draft:Carolyn Pollack Jewelry

Does anyone have any recommendations to help this article read more like an encyclopedic entry rather than an advertisement? First time submission so any suggestions will help to understand how articles cross into that area. The page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Carolyn_Pollack_Jewelry Shenlyism (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Shenlyism, you'll have to cut down on the adjectives a little and get rid of words like "coveted", "beautiful", and other peacock wording--we prefer fairly dry, dull encyclopedic wording. Other than that, the draft is fairly good. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 02:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Pages

Who can create a new Wikipedia page? Invisible Swordsman (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Invisible Swordsman:: In a sense, anyone who can edit can make a page -- see Wikipedia:Your first article. I'm guessing that you might mean "who can create an article without assistance," which would really be autoconfirmed users. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Article on NGO

Hi, I would love some advice! I'm trying this for the time and my article was declined because there are not enough 'reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. The NGO (Global Action Plan International) that my article is about is a swedish organisation, so my question is: can those other sources be links to swedish articles/websites? And also: the name of the page is now GAP International but I would like to change it to Global Action Plan International in full. How do I do that? Thanks!

User:LenaVd/GAP_International LenaVd (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello LenaVd (I took the liberty of converting the URL to a Wikilink in your question above). Yes, sources in Swedish are perfectly acceptable. Sources in English are preferred, if they exist, but high quality sources in any language are acceptable. As for the name: I suggest not worrying about it for the moment, as it is just in your user space. When you resubmit it and somebody accepts it, the accepting reviewer will move it to main space, and they will move it to the appropriate name in mainspace. But if you are concerned, you can move it to a different name in your user space any time. --ColinFine (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Having difficulty getting started on article

I have created and account but not a user page. I attempted to draft an article and did do so however upon my return to my account that page has disappeared. Where did it go and how can I keep in available to me as a draft? Do I need to have a user page and if so do things posted there remain as private drafts so I can work on them? Thank you Moose139 (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If you click the "Contributions" link near the top right-hand corner of any page, you will see a list of all your contributions, including the userspace draft that you started. You don't need to create a user page. Pages in your user space are not private, as anyone can see them. Normally other editors ought not to interfere with pages in your user space, except to post any relevant messages onto your user talk page; the only exception would be if pages in your userspace contravened Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

We do already have an article onIschemic preconditioning which includes a section on "remote Ischemic preconditioning" perhaps you could add to it, as long as you have reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

repeat submission of Draft:West_Indies_Yacht_Club by WIYC

I am at loss to understand what will make the editor understand the real issues with the article. Any advise/help will be really appreciated Devopam (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Devopam - It appears that you may have made a good-faith error in one of your declines. You declined the submission as a test edit. It is not a test edit and has never been. As a result, you didn't give the author a chance to get new feedback as to the need for additional references. You probably didn't mean to select test edit. I agree that the author appears to be making minor improvements in order to satisfy the absolute minimum that is requested, which tends to annoy both the reviewers and the author. In such cases, discussion here is far better than continued resubmission, which is a form of slow-motion edit-warring. I am sure that additional sources can be found. (The fact that the club is non-profit is not important. Not every non-profit is notable. Some non-profits, like such businesses, are very small.) As it is, the club is almost certainly notable, but more sources to that effect are better than fewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

What sort of extra information do you need to consider this article worthy of being on Wikipedia ??? This club has a significant importance as this is the home of a very rare collection of antique marine photographs some of them unique and few of the rare surviving works of Louis Daguerre. This club also hosts a fleet of 43 classic wooden sailing vessels built before WW2. I could appreciate you might not be interested in yachting but for those who do, this is important. Furthermore this club is a non-profit organisation.

If you could assist in the creation of the article by adding the information you thought missing or to improve it in any manner, please do. I would be most grateful. Thanks. Terry 2A02:A03F:1414:5400:DD19:AB3E:6495:987 (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Well, you were right, I felt a bit frustrated, but the most important things is we sort it out in a way that everyone is happy. Sure that Devopam did not mean it when the action on the test edit deprived me from reading further comments.

My concerns is that I am sure extra information would be found on the web, and I would be most grateful if one of you could help in making this articles meeting the wikipedia standards. As you said, it already meets the minimum standards but I agree with you for the good sake of enlightenment of readers, we could improve it and make it much better. Maybe publishing it would attract attention so other people could share more details, links, sources, related to the topic, don't you think ? Thanks for your help. WIYC (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I am prone to mistakes, and won't shy away from accepting it if done so. Please understand that while reviewing AfC articles, the objective is not to get actively involved with each article in a genuine attempt to improve it (significantly). That will defeat the purpose of AfC review and not enable users to learn for themselves. If I get some free time, I will try to edit the draft myself. Devopam (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

More on Henri Hauser

Dear All,

I am very shocked and dispapointed as someone called "Voceditenore" took my article and improved her article without any permission Copy/Past from my own sandbox the draft-Henry-Hauser and to her last current crappy article and let all the mistakes such as Henri Hauser was an agragarian !

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henri_Hauser&action=history

Then, she wrote this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Aron

"On the contary, Atalante88, this article had zero references. I have now re-written it and added three references which verify the material and establish his notability. Please do not add further material to this article unless you provide an inline citation to verify it and please do not include information from genealogy websites or similar self-published sources. Voceditenore (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)"

It appears that Voceditenore is the author of the last crappy article and what she could do is stealing articles from others and insulting people. And she left only three references and she erased the article from my own sandbox.

I don't understand that you declined a correct article honestly written and you prefer to let dishonest people stealing articles from the work of others. I accepted the rules of submission and anyone can do anything, do you accepted it ? Did you give this right ?

My feeling is that Voceditenore knows nothing about the work of Henry Hauser, in addition she knows nothing about Economy and she read practically nothing about or from HH. She displayed the picts from the book of Severine-Antigone Marin w/o any permission. I'm trying to contact Mrs Marin and Mr Soutou.

I hope you will be as severe as you previously were with me and the difference is I did the job by myself I did not steal work from anyone !

Please I request for Justice ! Thank you, Atalante88Atalante88 (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Atalante88: Voceditenore has not stolen anything. And, unlike you, she has not insulted anyone. If you are looking for allies in this argument, you need a better strategy. Maproom (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw two flawed articles, a very incomplete article in mainspace, and a longer article in draft space with non-neutral language and not in good English. User:Atalante88 submitted their draft twice, and it was twice declined because there was already an article in article space. Atalante88 then complained at length, having a partly valid point but no understanding of Wikipedia process. I tried to discuss, and then decided to be bold, and insert the longer but flawed article into article space, knowing that this would be criticized. I was criticized. I didn't think that the author of the draft that was promoted into article space was going into engage in conduct disputes, such as article ownership and personal attacks. I see two issues, a content issue, about improving an article that has two sources, one of them incomplete, one of them flawed, and conduct issues centered around one person, who isn't a collaborative editor. In their partial defense, they may have competency issues and maybe should not be in the English Wikipedia except for translating articles. As to the article, we can do one of two things. We can revert the article to its original state, or can try collaboratively to improve it. Should I canc]] cel my copy-and-paste, reverting the article? I would rather not, but will if the author insists that they own it. Otherwise, we can discuss article content at the talk page, and, if conduct issues, such as personal attacks, continue, User:Atalante88 can leave the article alone (absolutely alone), or we can pursue conduct issues at WP:ANI. I thought that maybe being bold might help. I was apparently mistaken. In any case, one editor is engaging in conduct issues, such as personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Atalante88, the next time you make an edit, please read the text at the top of the edit window, where it says: "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." Therefore, it is utterly false for you to describe any reuse or modification of your work as "stealing" and as for your accusations of "insulting people", I am sad to say that you are the only one guilty of that.

We simply do not accept new articles about topics where we have an existing article. Instead, we edit the existing article. We remove erroneous content, explaining why. We add new content and citations to reliable sources backing up that new content. We restructure the articles, copy edit them, wikify them, and add images as appropriate. As for the portrait of Hauser, we allow fair use low resolution non-free portraits of people who have died, as described at WP:NFCI #10. My sincere advice to you is to drop your confrontational attitude and instead start collaborating with more experienced editors in a cooperative fashion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Atalante88, while discussion about the actual content of Henri Hauser belongs on Talk:Henri Hauser, I want to clear up a couple of remaining misconceptions you have about the general process which have not been covered by Cullenb328, Robert McClenon, and Maproom. I know all this seems very complicated, but please take the time to read it carefully.
  • First, I am not the author of Henri Hauser. That article was created in 2006 by a different person [1] and had subsequently been worked on by at least 15 different editors before you started adding material to it on January 9, subsequently reverted by yet another editor (not me) because you had provided no references whatsoever [2]. I only began editing it on January 11 when it had been nominated for deletion (and looked like this). I did that to provide some basic biographical facts and sufficient sourcing which could be used to further improve, expand, and reference it [3]. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henri Hauser for an understanding of why existing articles cannot simply be deleted outright and then replaced with a new draft. To preserve attribution, improvement must be made to the existing article using material from the draft (if appropriate).
  • Secondly, I did not paste the material you had written in the draft into the article. Another editor did that [4]. One could argue that the pasted content was inappropriate in its current state, but that is not "stealing". Everything you write on Wikipedia belongs to Wikipedia and may be freely edited by all other editors. All that is required is that attribution be provided to all authors, via the article's history. The draft space is not "your own sandbox". It belongs to Wikipedia. For that matter, your sandbox also belongs to Wikipedia, but as a courtesy, other editors do not generally edit personal sandboxes unless invited or unless they contain seriously inappropriate content such as copyright violations. attacks, or libel.
  • Thirdly, I did not "erase your work". I redirected your draft to preserve attribution for what you had written and the content. I have explained that in detail in the section below. You may recover that material at any time and paste it in your sandbox to improve it before placing it in the article. You will find all the material in this version . Your sandbox, User:Atalante88/sandbox, is now available for that use. It had previously been automatically redirected to Draft:Henri Hauser when Robert moved it there after your submission to Articles for Ceation. I have now removed the redirect.
  • Finally, my comment ("On the contary, Atalante88, this article had zero references...") that you quoted above was in response to your contested deletion of Henry Aron on Talk:Henry Aron. It indeed had zero references.[5]. The references or lack thereof on Henri Hauser has no relevance whatsoever to contesting the deletion of an entirely different article. Perhaps you misunderstood which article you were contesting?

Voceditenore (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

So, where are we now? Henri Hauser is in a poor state, with big slabby paragraphs written in poor English. I for one am disinclined to spend time improving it, as Atalante88 appears to resent others editing "his" article, and it may be thought best to revert it to its pre-User:Atalante88 state. Maproom (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

At this point, I agree with a simple revert. I tried to take a bold action, but it seems that the one editor whose help we most need, User:Atalante88 will not or cannot help. So they have, by not being collaborative, lost any chance of getting the original article improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User:ZeroShadows/sandbox and Left 4 Dead 2

I reviewed User:ZeroShadows/sandbox and declined it, saying that it should be merged or added into the existing article Left 4 Dead 2. It clearly isn’t a draft main article, but draft text to be added to an article. I then received the following from User:ZeroShadows: Regarding the rejection of my request to add to the Left 4 Dead 2 article. You recommended that I edit the page directly and add this information. I've done that previously and the changes were removed by another user, citing lack of references or poor quality references. That is why I created this draft for review, before including them again in the main article. Can I resubmit my draft for approval? I would like to ask if other experienced editors concur with my advice, but I think that the answer is no. AFC is not a procedure for the review of additions to articles. It is a procedure for the review of new draft articles. Read the dispute resolution policy about content disputes to existing articles. It will say to discuss on the article talk page. That hasn’t been attempted; there has been no talk page discussion for two years. If talk page discussion fails, the dispute resolution policy lists multiple noticeboards, such as Third Opinion, the dispute resolution noticeboard, and the reliable source noticeboard. AFC doesn’t review additions to articles (and also isn’t intended to review replacements for articles). Comments by other editors?

My own overall comment is: If you have issues about an article, especially about contested or reverted edits, use the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that issues about an article belong on the article help page. As others have noted, many of your recent Teahouse questions have been about AFC submissions. The place for questions on that topic is WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. If I understand it correctly, the Teahouse is intended for more general questions from new editors. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, it's not really that Robert McClenon has questions, but rather that he is referring questions from new editors on here. Perhaps there is another, better place for those questions, but they are from new editors, so I see the logic of bringing them here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Most (not all) of my questions have been requests for advice to new editors. In my experience, the Teahouse is a better forum for advice to new editors than the AFC Help Desk. If the questions are about the AFC process, I will take them to the AFC Help Desk. The Teahouse however is where the decline message to new editors asks them to go, giving them also the option of the reviewer talk page. I don't want to conduct long discussions of draft articles at my talk page, because I don't want to exercise proxy article ownership of review of the article, and because I know that reasonable experienced editors sometimes disagree in spite of being reasonable. Do we in this case agree that the editor made a good-faith error in submitting an addition to an article to AFC, rather than discussion on the talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Reviewed page not showing edits

Hi, I recently made an edit to a page which was then reviewed and accepted, and while the updated version is showing up for me (even when not logged in), others have told me they can't see the new version. Any advice? Thanks!Eaoyama (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean the "Private Sector" section of John Baird (Canadian politician)? If so, then your edit was in WP:Pending changes but has now been accepted. If anyone still can't see it, they just need to purge their browser cache. Dbfirs 21:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: [Ticket#2015112310008338] Requesting a correction on Islamic Development Bank (IsDB) entry.

To Whom it may concern

This is to inform you that the Islamic Development Bank has come across its page in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Development_Bank and found a great deal of untrue and disturbing information. You are kindly requested to provide the Islamic Development Bank direct access to edit and submit the institution's corporate profile as soon as possible.

Regards,

Khaled Nazer Group Communications Division Bank Secretariat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.42.235.250 (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Hello, Khaled Nazer. Wikipedia is the free encyclopaedia that anybody may edit. There is not an editorial staff which can respond to such requests: instead, there are thousands of volunteers.

In principle, anybody in the world can edit that article - in particular, you are physically able to go in and edit it. However, before you do so, please read about our policy on conflict of interest - because of your connection with the the subject of the article, you are strongly discouraged from editing it directly. Instead, what you should do is post your concerns on the the article's talk page. Start a new section, by picking '+' or 'new section' at the top, and explain the changes you want to see. Please be as specific as you can, and accompany any changes you propose with citations to reliable published sources (if possible, sources independent of the bank). If you add {{edit request}} (with the double curly brackets) to your submission, this will put it on a list of requests.

Please note that the reason for discouraging you from editing the article is that a Wikipedia article is required to be neutral, based predominantly on independent sources. On the face of it, the current article looks as if it is well-sourced (though I have not looked at the sources in detail). If your proposed edits include deleting material that is well-sourced, they are unlikely to be accepted; and similarly, material will only be added if it is referenced to reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Khaled Nazer, please use the talk page, Talk:Islamic Development Bank, to list the things you think are wrong in the article, as you have already been advised to do. If, for example, you think that Mohammed bin Faisal Al Saud was not a president of the bank (and certainly our article about him doesn't suggest that he was), then please say that clearly on the talk page. Better still, list sources (newspapers, books, journals and the like) that state who the presidents have been. There's no problem if those sources are in Arabic rather than English. If there's untrue and disturbing information in the article we'd like to check it, and correct it if it seems wrong. You won't, however, be able to submit the corporate profile of the bank – we don't do that here. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Dealing With Translated Redlinks, Wiktionary Editing

I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask this question. I am trying to clear out a bunch of redlinks on the Wiktionary Israel page. I don't know how to unlink translated n-grams without untranslating them. Help?TheCensorFencer (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You will probably get a better response at wikt:Wiktionary:Information desk.--ukexpat (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that!TheCensorFencer (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)