Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 822

I am 87 years old, was the instigator of this project, and feel it should be recorded on Wikipedia. There is a Wall Street Journal article verifying its existence, but I don't know how to upload it.

Any assistance would be appreciated.

Thanks, George Van Valkenburg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quickscan1 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello User:Quickscan1 and welcome to the Teahouse.

I found a couple of mentions, including this one Lost in Space: The Fall of NASA and the Dream of a New Space Age By Greg Klerkx p175 which could be the starting point for an article. This other mention, at CollectSpace.com probably can't be used. Someone with access to a newspaper database could probably track down the WSJ articles you remember. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, George. I did not find the Wall Street Journal article, but I found one that mentions you,^[1] a syndicated article that was picked up by many small newspapers,^[2], an AP release, also widely distributed,^[3] several by LaMont,^[4] and a status report in November^[5]. Hope these help. [LATER] All the references ended at the bottom of the Teahouse page. Sorry about that. I don't know how to move them. Someone else may help.Anobium625 (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Someone did. Thanks.Anobium625 (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This might actually be enough for a stub article. If further sources can be found, including perhaps this elusive Wall Street Journal article, this might very well be a worthwhile article to create. Anobium625, do you have external links to any of the sources you cited? Or are they all offline? —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 08:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I happen to have a couple newspaper accounts (NY Times and another), so I looked for "Harvest Moon Project" in 1971 and found these articles. Anyone with a US newspaper account ought to be able to find the syndicated articles. I didn't have access to the Wall Street Journal, and I didn't look at 1972. Anobium625 (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Nøkkenbuer Not sure what "external links" are. I have now found a dozen citations, although some overlap, and the topic is interesting, so I may create a (very) short article. For further discussion, I'll go to your Talk page. Anobium625 (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Anobium625, "external links" is a bit of wiki jargon. By "external links", I mean URL hyperlinks to those external sources. For example, if you found the source on https://example.com/sourcing-location, that link is an external link. It can either be linked directly or linked with some markup, such as source 1, which renders as source 1.

Given what you said, my guess is that they are paywalled. Nonetheless, if you have a generic URL to the paywalled source, such as one which would display as a paywall to us non-subscribers (an example would be this one, taken from Veganism), that can be helpful here. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Nøkkenbuer. I have completed a draft article for Project Harvest Moon, although it still needs some editing, and I want to read Barbara Marx Hubbard's biography before I submit it. Is there any way you can look at it in my sandbox? [User:Anobium625/sandbox] Thanks. Anobium625 (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I'll review the work at your sandbox. If you don't mind, I can also make some changes to it. By the way, I refactored your post slightly by adding four colons before it. I hope you're okay with that and apologies in advance if you intended to outdent. Adding those colons threads the discussion by indenting the post, which helps improve the readability of the discussion. When doing so, be sure to mind the list gap by not adding line breaks between threaded replies (this threaded discussion thus far is how it should be done), which can cause accessibility problems for those using screen readers. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Nøkkenbuer. I didn't know about the colons, so I appreciate the information. My ego isn't involved with Harvest Moon, so make any changes in my sandbox that you think appropriate. I think I erred in adding categories, so I'm going to change them to comments for now. Anobium625 (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

To Nøkkenbuer: An update. I found an active discussion of Project Harvest Moon at <https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46196.0>. Although I had to register (no charge), I had no difficulty joining the forum, where GVV has uploaded the WSJ article, a magazine article with details of the project's experiments, and the text of Rep. Olin Teague's resolution to support the project. I'll include citations in my current draft, so don't review and revise it before tomorrow. Thanks. Anobium625 (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

To Nøkkenbuer: The Hubbard biography arrived in the mail today and casts no light on Project Harvest Moon or the Committee for the Future. So, I am finished with my editing of the draft. Review it, please, and change what you believe needs changing. I did receive some additional material from GVV, but nothing that Wiki would accept for a citation. Let me know when you are done, and I will submit the draft for consideration as an article.Anobium625 (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I hope that dead end wasn't too costly, Anobium625. If nothing else, perhaps you can use the biography to improve Barbara Marx Hubbard's article, if you're interested. I'll gladly review and edit your draft, though I may not do so much if at all until the beginning of September, since I'm currently helping prepare this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost (you can read the current issue here and even subscribe if you want). The publication date is currently set at 30 August, so the deadline is rather too close for comfort when it comes to editing outside it. After that's over, though, I don't mind helping out at all. In the meantime, feel free to submit what you have if you'd rather not wait. Perhaps someone else will help out, too. Thanks for all the work and research you've put into this matter, by the way. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC); last edited at 16:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Nøkkenbuer. GVV informed me, and I have confirmed, that Barbara Marx Hubbard credited GVV with originating Harvest Moon in her book, The Hunger of Eve. So, I am waiting to read that before continuing. A Google Books snippet of the book seems to confirm GVV. It will be easy to verify that, but not so easy to find out if the book was self-published. I would not consider any editing of Hubbard's Wiki page. Anobium625 (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, after seeing the discussion at NSF (where I am a mod) I reviewed the article and made some suggestions on its talk page (which I created). I see no reason not to take it live as is, I think it's already beyond Start and I'd call it a B class. I put suggested wikiproject boxes (inactive) in the talk page as well. Although I am not that active on WP these days I do know a bit about article work having taken one to FA, and I'm willing to periodicailly review or give suggestions. Nice work. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nøkkenbuer where is the article draft currently located? I might be interested in contributing if I can. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Currently, Dodger67, the draft is located at Anobium625's sandbox, which is here. It may be worthwhile to move it into draft space, if only so that the draft can redirect to the article when it's moved, but I don't think it matters much.

Given the current state of the draft, I agree with Lar that it can be published now if everyone is okay with that. It's sourced and exceeds the general notability criteria and any other such concerns, so I'm not worried about it being deleted. At this point, it's just about expanding the article and moving up the quality assessment scale. But of course, it sitting in the sandbox for a few more days or a week isn't a concern, either. There's no rush with this, after all. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 10:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Moved to main space. Agree a DYK would be good! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC).

How can someone randomly decide to delete the entry about Marika Sherwood. She is a respected researcher and historian. Publisher of many books with Routledge as well as owning her own publishing company. I suspect that someone merely doesn't like her politics. That is their choice. But to deny her an entry based on spurious personal reasons I absurd. You only have to Google her name to find the volume of her work stretching over 30 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.254.20.111 (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2018

The article Marika Sherwood has been proposed for deletion at Articles for Deletion (AfD). The proposers reasons are stated there, and do not include opposition to her politics. The proper place to oppose is at AfD, not here. David notMD (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] No-one has decided to delete the article Marika Sherwood, which as I type is still there. Someone has decided to place it under consideration for deletion – the prominent box at the top of the article clearly states this, and contains a link to the ongoing discussion about whether or not to delete it, in which anyone can participate.

The reason for deletion being contemplated is that the article doesn't (yet) sufficiently demonstrate Marika Sherwood's notability in Wikipedia's special sense of this word, which is not how important someone is, but whether sufficient information has been published, about them but independently of them, by Reliable sources to support an acceptable article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.127.181 (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear,

I have a problem with posting an image on wikipedia. The page is [] We sent email to; permissions-commons@wikimedia.org [Ticket#2018082810003405] with a request for permission to publish pictures and all the necessary information, but no one has reviewed the mail.

I am the owner of the image and the site administrator of the singer. You can check everything out.

Please help us to solve this problem as well.

All the best

Azra Halilbegovic User:Enigma666rock (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)enigma666rock

Enigma666rock: if you work for Amira Medunjanin you are a paid editor, and need to read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and formally declare your paid status. And if you get a chance to meet her, you could take a better picture (in colour, with her facing the camera) than the one now in the article, and upload it yourself. That way you would avoid the rather difficult "permissions" bureaucracy that they require at Wikimedia Commons. Incidentally, this is the Help Desk for English-language Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons has its own Help Desk here. Maproom (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The page on Technology Readiness Level has been deleted. I retrieved a 25 August cached version of the page from google. There was a speedy deletion notice on it (G12) for copyright infringement, which I presume lead to the deletion. I don't think the speedy deletion was justified however. Firstly, the document that was listed as the source document for the copyright infringement was only one table out of a whole page. Secondly, the table seemed to me to be properly referenced to a document that was publicly available, and that more closely matched the contents of the table than the document flagged in the copyright violation notice. The table also clearly stated that these were the DoD definitions, so there is no assertion that the table was original content.

Am I misunderstanding something? If not, can someone undelete it?

Cookish (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Cookish: The page is Technology readiness level. In such cases, you should first contact the deleting administrator, in that case RHaworth. If that discussion goes nowhere, you may then contest the deletion at WP:DRV.

The table you linked to is source to the Defense Acquisition Guidebook, which might or might not be suitably licensed for use on Wikipedia. says "(c) all rights reserved" for the website contents, but the guidebook itself is likely to fall under {{PD-USGov-Military}}. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

If you were to search a school on Wikipedia, you'd expect to learn more about the school, its history, facilities, sports, grades available, faculty, alumni and more. It's also normal that every school in the nation has had kids get in trouble at some point in their history, and the details aren't listed on the wikipedia page - listing every major disciplinary event would replace the content of every school page with a discipline log.

But for some reason specific a small group of users have targeted The First Academy's page. One or more users have replaced the headmaster and principal with a completely unrelated racist author, and repeatedly promote three articles through citations that otherwise would have no relevance other than benefitting the owner of the websites.

They users strip out the Academic details, telling about what the unique features and classes the school offer, abd have stripped all links to the school's social media, and external pages. Furthermore, they removed the athletic history and facilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timnethers (talk • contribs)

Changing the name of the school administrator to someone else is vandalism. Report vandalism at the vandalism notice-board. In this case, the content dispute over the Controversies may resolve itself when the vandal is blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

This page has a history of editors who have a conflict of interest, and in this case an undisclosed paid editor. @Timnethers: Please review the following:

• Editors who receive money or other inducements to edit Wikipedia on behalf of their employer or client must make a mandatory declaration of what articles they are editing and who is paying them. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, as I believe this applies to you. Do not make any further edits to this article until you have done so.
• The school or its representatives do not own or control the content of the article. Obvious vandalism can be dealt with, but all other content must be arrived at by consensus.
• Wikipedia only cares about what reliable, unaffiliated sources say about the school. We have no interest in what the school wants to say about itself or how it wants to be portrayed, as Wikipedia is not a vehicle for PR.
• As long as it's written with the proper balance and from a neutral point of view, both positive and negative information is fair game.
• If you have issues with the content, raise the issue on the article talk page. If a discussion there does not satisfy your concerns, use the dispute resolution process.

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello.

How do I check/confirm the special right(s) I own on Wikipedia? Mutiat Mustapha (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Mutiat Mustapha and welcome to the Teahouse. You can go to preferences --> "Member of groups:", you should see which user groups you belong to. Regards —AE (talk • contributions) 11:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Abelmoschus Esculentus. I know the level I am on Wikipedia. What I don't know yet- and want to know- is if I enjoy/own any of the following special rights:

• Administrator
• Account creator
• Bureaucrat
• Autopatrolled
• Pending changes reviewer
• Rollback
• New page reviewer
• Ipblock-exempt
• Page mover
• Event coordinator
• CheckUser
• Oversight
• Edit filter helper
• Edit filter manager,
• Course coordinator, instructor & campus volunteer.

Mutiat Mustapha (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mutiat Mustapha - according to Special:UserRights/Mutiat Mustapha you don't have any of those rights yet. As far as I know, unless your preferences say that you have a certain user right, you don't have it. If you feel that you need to use one of those rights for the editing you do, you can request for it at WP:PERM. However, users who have very little wiki experience will generally not get additional user rights, particularly the more advanced ones (such as template editor), and you will usually need to demonstrate that you would use the rights that you request for. Most of the user rights have certain requirements that you usually need to meet before requesting. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks SkyGazer 512 for the enlightenment Mutiat Mustapha (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

hello everyone, I am editing/creating a draft for a Bank, that operates in Montenegro, of which I am an employee and I would like to ask some questions regarding notability from independent sources:

Do government institutions (specifically regulators within the financial market) count as independent sources and do they prove notability? Their data is fully objective and mandatory for all market participants, so it is a fact.

Do listings on valid websites like Bloomberg.com count towards notability?

Do external audit reports (E&Y, Delloite, KPMG, PwC) count towards notability from independent sources? they are fully objective and verifiable as they are mandatory for all financial market participants.

Do interviews from Bank`s management personnel, published in an established industry branch journal, count towards notability?Naz081 (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Naz081: to establish notability, you need several reliable independent publish sources which discuss the subject at length.

Government institutions rarely discuss individual institutions at length – though they might. Bloomberg carries listings rather than discussions. Audit reports don't contribute to notability, tiny companies are audited, this doesn't make them notable. Interviews with the company's personnel are not independent of the company. So it's unlikely that any of these would be accepted as helping to show notability. Maproom (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the insight. I will look for better references. One more thing, could i submit a stub to begin with and add data later as long as it is approved by other editors? Do stubs weight the same as full arcicles in regards to notability requirements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naz081 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Please don't do that, Naz081. In my view, stubs are a feature of an earlier age, when Wikipedia was less mature. There is no role for them now: with the AFC system in place there is no reason for introducing a stub into Wikipedia. The fact that you are considering it suggests that your purpose is "getting your bank into Wikipedia". It is not surprising that this is your concern, given your job; but it is fundamentally inconsistent with the purposes of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's purpose is to have well-written, informative, neutral articles that summarise what reliable independent sources say about a subject. Wikipedia is not interested, at all, in what your company's wishes may be for your on-line presence. --ColinFine (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Noted. However, I believe that there should be some trace of the institution’s existance on wikipedia.

Why would you suggest that i am doing this because someone oredered me to do it? A job i am failing at for over 2 years? Trust me, i am submitting this article mainly because i want to And partialy because i saw that other bank’s who operate in Montenegro on this article List of banks in Montenegro have articles accepted even though they dont even come close the the standards/requirements you impose on my article.

You cannot tell me that those articles are wikipedia worthy. I wouldnt mind having a hard time submitting an article if the conditions are the same for all. In fact they are not, i even suggested speedy delition (biased but 100% in compliance with wiki requirements- some pages even had no references) on few of those articles and it got rejected.

Lastly, if institution’s office locations is 100% verifiable does that not hold merrit for at least one relevant sentence that would create a page otherwise non existent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naz081 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You put a WP:PROD tag on Prva banka Crne Gore, not a WP:CSD tag. It was (correctly, in my view) declined by User:Iridescent who directed you to WP:AFD if you wanted to pursue deletion any further. Notability standards have changed since 2007 when that article was created, but that doesn't mean every article has been referenced yet. An article created today with the only reference being an external link to the company's website would certainly be declined at AFC. shoy (reactions) 19:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Good day, I am Aminu chumaro and I am a new editor. I have written a profile article but having issues in submitting my piece. The second question is how many days will it take for my article to be seen online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davonameen123 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Davonameen123, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, you have done what many new editors do, and plunged straight into one of the most difficult tasks in editing Wikipedia: creating a new article. Wikipedia does not contain profiles: it contains articles, which are something different. We are not interested in what you know or think (or what I know or think), and it is certainly not interested in what a subject says about themselves, or what their friends or associates say about them. To write a successful article, you need to start by finding places where people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to write at some length about the subject, and been published in a place with a reputation for editorial control, such as a major newspaper, or a book from a reputable publisher. Nothing published by the subject or their associates is relevant at this stage, and nothing from social media, or user-generated sources such as iMDB or Wikipedia. If you can find a few such sources, then carry on - it is possible to write an article; if you can't give up, and go to some other topic.

Then forget everything you know about the subject and write an article which summarises what the independent sources say: nothing more. What you get is not a profile, but an article summarising independent commentary on the subject.

Your draft, User:Davonameen123/sandbox does not cite any sources at all, and thus will never be accepted as an article in its current form.

Once you have found some reliable published sources, and written the article entirely based on the information in those sources, you can submit it for review by pasting {{AFC draft}} at the top (with the double curly braces). In time, somebody will review it, and either accept it and move it into article space, or tell you why they don't think it is acceptable yet. But please don't do this until you have added some reliable sources.

My advice at this point would be to read your first article; and then to leave this one, and spend a few months editing existing articles, to get the feel for how Wikipedia works, before you go back to creating a new one. --ColinFine (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I reviewed Draft:ZDHC and declined it, saying that it did not establish organizational notability and that it focused entirely on what the foundation says and not what independent sources have written. The author, User:RAJIVVASUDEV, said that they would add more references. I reminded them not to reference bomb the draft by adding a large number of low-quality references. They then replied to me and have asked me to review the draft again. Rather than reviewing the draft again, I will ask other experienced editors to take a look at it. It still appears to me to consist of what the foundation says about itself, but I may be “stuck” on my previous assessment. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Someone needs to explain to RAJIVVASUDEV that when assessing notabiility, references are assessed on quality, not quantity. You didn't ask for more references, you asked for better references. Maproom (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk), Maproom (talk), Sir, I accept it. I am still struggling, let me try again with quality contents. Thanks, Rajiv Sharma (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Did copy-editing on weak grammar of first paragraph, but did not examine references for quality, i.e., independence from what the Foundation says about itself. David notMD (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Which is now moot, as submitting editor now blocked for sockpuppetry at various fabric and textile related articles. (Fabric articles, sock puppet, HaHaHaHaHa.) David notMD (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I read the article concerning Bob Steele. It stated his fame was in decline. I have a question on his fame. I heard years ago that his popularity came to an end partly because of his small stature. It was said it did not look right for a small man of his size to be whipping up on bigger bad guys. Is there any truth to his rumor.

Forrest O'Bear — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.226.118.236 (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. This is the place to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia. The place to ask questions about what's true or not is Wikipedia:Reference desk. Someone there might well be able to help you. › Mortee _talk 21:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I am considering extracting and consolidating tables from the GAO report Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Definition and List of Community Land Grants in New Mexico and adding the resultant table to the Wikipedia page Land grants in New Mexico. I will reference the source of the table. Does this extraction/reformatting of information violate any Wikipedia policies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fletchersparadox (talk • contribs) 22:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I think since it is a government funded report, it is considered public domain, since after all we the taxpayers paid for it. Also, copying figures in tables is different than using someone’s prose. However, you might want to also ask at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems to be completely sure. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there anything that can be done about another editor that I believe is harassing me? He shows up on every article I write, insults my writing and my character and my behavior--which is unfailingly polite--he won't accept consensus, and when told by other editors to get consensus for his views, he ignores that. He makes threats--this list could go on, and it has been going on since I got here a year ago. I am feeling both stalked and personally harassed. He is tendentious based on nearly every definition. The problem is this guy has been here a long time and is protected by others. He is well liked by a certain group. He gets brought to Admin about once every four to six weeks for his behavior and nothing happens. He threatened to shun me on my talk page, and I would really like him to do that, but he is not following through. Is there anything at all that I can do to get away from this person? Is there some way to stop him from following me? I have given up trying to reason with him. He gets furious at not being obeyed and there is no negotiation thereafter. Is my only option to leave Wikipedia?Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: - WP:HARASS explains, in an in-depth fashion, the ways in which one can be harassed on Wikipedia, while this gives guideance regarding resolution of the issue. Having reviewed your discussion above, I have deduced the editor you are referring to, and would recommend that you ping them before proceeding any further. There are several ways of dealing with this, if you deem it serious enough. You could appeal to administrators to intervene, but sentiments like this (The problem is this guy has been here a long time and is protected by others. He is well liked by a certain group.) suggest that you do not view this as a viable route. Alternatively, you could consult the Arbitration Committee, present any diffs and evidence you have, and request judgement from them. However, this is only viable in very serious cases, and comes with a boomerang effect that will see your editing patterns scrutinised intensely. However, I would recommend against this. Rather, I would suggest a third method of dispute resolution - sitting down with a couple of tea. The route of your issue seems to be over editing, and this suggests to me that the rift is not irreconcilable. Both parties seem interested in enhancing Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I would suggest simply sitting down and hashing out your respective concerns until a commonality and agreement is reached. I don't feel that either party is unreasonable, and it seems to me that talking things over in a calm, civil fashion is worth an attempt at the very least. Harassment or bullying are very serious charges to levy against someone on Wikipedia, and this should not be done lightly. Sometimes seemingly vast differences are actually miniscule in nature, once talked over. This is the course of action I would recommend. It won't be easy, and may necessitate the swallowing of pride and other difficult pills to succeed, but it is far preferable to other avenues. The dispute is based on content and conduct, and if both parties engage constructively and accept each others' thoughts, in accordance with any relevant Wikipedia policy, harmony may be found. As such, I won't ping the editor you have a grievance with, as this is your decision, but I recommend that you do, and discuss your issues frankly and honestly in an effort to resolve them. I really hope this helps both sides of the dispute, Stormy clouds (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort. I am attempting to discuss and have repeatedly attempted to discuss, meet him part way, negotiate--I am not concerned with pride, I would happily admit error if I thought that would make it end. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: - let me reiterate that I am sorry to hear of your troubles. Once again, however, I would urge you to ping him, and bring him into this rapidly cascading wall of text. The editor in question is not unreasonable, in my experience, and talking this out openly will likely go some way towards healing the rift between you both. Nothing will be solved without a coming together, olive branches and shared open-mindedness in tow. Stormy clouds (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

If you are looking at my talk page, that discussion moved to the article page. It's not necessary to ping him. He is continually posting there at this point. I do absolutely, totally agree with you: nothing can be resolved without coming together. Other than agreeing with him and doing what he wants, I don't see a way to bring that about. I tried inserting part of what he wanted, and tried to use the reference he gave, but he reverted it before I could finish, saying it was "shine on a turd." He wants to insert a particular pov into the article. I don't agree that particular pov--which is his pet peeve--will benefit the article. You can see the result for yourself. Remember when you are looking at his comments that this is a good article that has also been through peer review already. If you have any practical ideas, I will try just about anything. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I do disagree with one thing though. The editor in question is not reasonable with me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• I was made aware of this discussion at my talk page. The OP posted asking what to do to address harassment. Harassment is a behavior issue. The guidance for dealing with disputes over behavior is Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_user_conduct_disputes.

The folks responding have noted that this is the most recent chapter in a running dispute, and that the OP and I should focus on content and pursue content DR as described in WP:DR. That is good advice.

However, where I stand is described here. I posted there looking for acknowledgement at least, and there was nothing. For me, the behavior I described there has (and these words are considered carefully) placed the OP beyond the pale of any good-faith discussion in WP; no one should assume that this person is editing and arguing in good faith with respect to the P&G here or even the basics of scholarship. If they did all that out of emotion over my edit, that makes it perhaps understandable, but no less corrosive or wrong. If folks here can guide the OP into addressing that, it might open a way forward and save us all drama. I am considering how and when to bring that behavior -- which undermines everything that we do here with regard to building content together -- to the community for action. If I do, I believe the community will act in response. This is quite serious to me, and I have nothing to say to this person. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC) (striking, with apologies. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC))

Does anyone think this is a reasonable good faith response? That diff contains his accusation that I did not read the source. I assured him I had. Then he accused me of dishonesty. His proof, apparently, is that I disagreed it should be in the article--because obviously if I had read it, I would think what he thinks. I attempted to put in the article part of what he wanted. He reverted, with insult. He was told by another editor that they agreed with my assessment of his edit and that if he still disagreed he should get consensus. He did not and then insulted them. He accuses me of bad scholarship. I like to think Wikipedia articles don't become good articles based on bad scholarship. I came here because I am at my wit's end with having this happen repeatedly. I have never been anything but polite and cooperative with him. It still produces responses like this one here. This behavior is Wikipedia:Tendentious by definition, as is this paragraph, as is his record of dealing with me for the past year. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's be clear:

• I made an edit (not perfect, could be improved of course)
  • It was reverted by this person with no basis in P&G.
  • I (admittedly, badly) restored it and explained the lack of reasoning in the revert and the reason for the edit.
  • it was again reverted by this person with yet more incoherent words
  • I (again, admittedly very badly) restored again, again explaining per P&G.
  • I was reverted by another person, and I let it rest there.

In the discussion on talk, this person made the following edits, none of which reflect engagement with the source:

• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff

After all of this -- 2 reverts and 5 comments on talk, the person made an edit to the article with edit note: saying: added phrase for Jytdog--will go get the reference now

So all 7 actions prior to that, and that edit, were done without engaging the source, but on some other basis entirely.

These diffs simply are what they are.

It is not unlikely that after this the person did indeed "go get the reference " (how much they have actually engaged with it, I cannot say).

Again, emotion over the initial edit makes their behavior understandable; it does not excuse it, nor the quite obvious dodging that has happened since then. Their entire stance here is driven by emotion about me. And all in some misguided defense of indefensibly WEASEL content that misrepresents the views of a living person who is a biblical scholar.

Again if folks here could get this person to leave whatever unsustainable place they have lived themselves into and deal with this, there is a way forward, with a lot of work. But this is a bar to any future interaction and in my view this person's credibility as an editor, should be considered marginal at best until this is addressed.Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC) (striking, with apologies Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC))

Shew! Except they aren't what he says. The second revert was done by me with a plea, the third revert was by another editor who agreed with my assessment of the content.

He makes assertions like this one: Their entire stance here is driven by emotion about me. What am I supposed to do with that? I think I made it clear my only issue was that I just didn't think his edit was appropriate for the article--that's all. I am reverting your contribution--with genuine regret--simply because it's too long. I have had to do the same for someone else who wanted more on Sanders, and someone who wanted more on Schweitzer, and everything was interesting and accurate, but if all the detail gets included that everyone wants, the article will sink completely beneath the weight of it all. Please note the Jewish response got two paragraphs where the others only got one. Adding yet more is conspicuous. Since this material is already on another page, it's simply inappropriate to add it all here. Please don't be upset. We could work together on something else. But not this one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

He jumped to a false conclusion about me not reading the source and won't let it go. :I have no argument with the source. It's a perfectly good source and it says what you say it says. That's beside the point. Everything can't be included no matter how good the source is. If this is added for the Jewish paragraph, it will also have to be added for the Catholic one--which I note you have made no objection about. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

His response: ::What you have done is fundamentally dishonest. You have not acknowledged that. I have no interest in dealing with this kind of behavior and will be shunning you from now on. See WP:SHUN. Terrible. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

His accusation that the diff he references is proof I didn't read the source--which accusation persists in spite of my response--is incorrect. It's on my talk page. Anyone can go look there as well. I can't get his statement to work--I think because it already contains a tq--but it's on the page. He said my effort to include part of his text was "shameful".

:::::What at all is there shameful in copy pasting from what you wrote, in order to be sure what you had said, in your own words, was at least partially included in the article--even though it was not possible to include it all? And since I was copy pasting, I had to do it in two separate chunks, so I was going back for the reference when you reverted. I was making the effort to include your statement, and your reference as well, since you set such high store by it, and didn't get the chance because you are the fastest reverter on Wikipedia. Attempting to meet someone part way and accommodate their concerns is "shameful" in your book? No wonder we always end up here. What is shameful here isn't me--it really has nothing to do with me. Where is that shunning you promised? Perhaps I should take a page from your playbook and say "you are no longer welcome to post on my talkpage?" Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to abide by what the community thinks should be done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have no more to say here. This person came looking for guidance, and I hope it can be given to them. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• This isn't the venue to adjudicate harassment claims or the underlying content dispute (the reviewers at WP:FAC will scrutinise content far better than we can). Stormy clouds linked to WP:Harassment and WP:Dispute resolution already. Guidance on avoiding academic dishonesty might be a Teahouse topic but Jenhawk777 didn't ask that and I don't think it's happened. Jenhawk included a quote from Jytdog's proposal in her edit, leaving it momentarily un-cited and saying she'd go and get the reference. I take that to mean the <ref> details from Jon D. Levenson. That doesn't mean she hasn't read it. Even if she hadn't, the argument as a whole is at cross purposes such that while Jytdog is arguing a point where that's relevant, Jenhawk is rebutting one where it's not. Regardless, describing something as corrosive, beyond the pale and fundamentally dishonest isn't likely to foster an agreement. I'll explain my reasons for thinking the argument is at cross-purposes at Talk:Biblical criticism in case it's helpful. › Mortee _talk 22:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Mortee. I see. So you read "will go get the reference now" as meaning going and copying the citation, to paste it into the article, or something like that. Is that right? Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog The answer to that question was given on my talk page and again here directly above. You simply chose not to believe it. I had just posted a reference-less statement and was going back to copy the full citation for it from your original edit. I didn't get the chance. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Mortee I agree this is not the place for airing disputes. Please note, I came here to ask for some practical guidance. I did not name Jytdog, or ping him, or bring the dispute here. How does one go about negotiating in good faith with someone who calls you dishonest and doesn't believe your answers when you give them? I needed help. I've only been here a year, so I don't know all the ins and outs. So I asked. I don't understand your comment that I am rebutting a point where it isn't relevant, but I will try to stop doing that, if I can figure out when I am doing it! Truthfully, I don't understand any of this. I disagreed--then everything went to Hell. I would appreciate any insight you can give at the article talk page--or feel free to discuss at my talk page--or anywhere you please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I am willing to accept that this was a reference to getting the citation. I apologize, JenHawk777. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 you were entirely right asking for help here originally. I didn't mean to say otherwise. I only meant to say that Teahouse can only help with links to the processes designed for this kind of thing, and the discussion had probably gone as far as it could do at this venue. I also don't think it's your fault that you're rebutting a different point than what Jytdog is making, that's just a misunderstanding. I've tried to explain it in my comment on the talk page now. You're doing sterling work on the article in question, and I fully encourage you in it. If I can help the two of you reach an agreement at other venues, I'll happily do so. › Mortee _talk 23:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog that was my reading, yes. I don't think it was directly explained by Jenhawk (though I may have missed it), but it seemed clear enough to me that she meant the reference not the source. Again, just a misunderstanding, but the exacerbation could have been avoided by starting with a question rather than a warning. You're both very fine editors. I hope you'll work this out. › Mortee _talk 23:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Mortee So all of this spun up because I didn't have enough experience at the start to know to use the word citation instead of reference? Excuse my French, but Holy shit! That is truly terrible. I had lost all faith that this could ever be resolved. Without you I don't think it would have. I came here for help and I got it. Thank you. Thank you so very, very much. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog Thank you, genuinely, for the apology. It is of course accepted with gratitude. I am also sorry for all the trouble. I really am pedaling as fast as I can Jytdog. There's so much to learn here! And every time I think I'm getting a handle on things--something new, like this, comes up that I am completely clueless about. Please do forgive my many ignorances. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello there, To follow up on a previous discussion, I have extensive research from genealogical sites, such as Ancestry.com, news clippings, etc. and have solid information from The New York Public Library's Millstein collection and the Beverly Hills-based Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences/ Margaret Herrick Library that supports my claim that much of the information on the current Wikipedia page for Beatrice Roberts is incorrect. I tried to correct it last week through my edits but it appears the changes have been erased. I am honestly flummoxed and wonder how Wikipedia can purport to be a source of information when it publishes incorrect information. I am happy to fix the information again, but please let me know what sources you consider credible? I have marriage certificates, death records, clippings and more. Thank you in advance. --Jmuromano (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jmuromano. The first thing you should do, in my opinion, is to read and study Identifying reliable sources. In general, most genealogical sites are not reliable sources, since they are user edited and lack professional editorial supervision. "Clippings" is a vague word and whether or not something is cut out of a publication is not relevant. What is relevant is the reputation of the publication, and the bibiographic details. If you have a random paper clipping that does not include the date and the name of the publication, then that is worthless on Wikipedia. On the other hand, if you have the bibiographic details and the publication has a good reputation, then that source can be used in a Wikipedia biography. Marriage certificates and death certificates are not really good sources, because "Beatrice Roberts" is a very common name. How do we know that the "Beatrice Roberts" mentioned in those documents is the subject of this biography? As for the "solid information " from two well-known libraries, how are you defining "solid"? We do not care whether you found a specific source in a famous library, a used book store or in a dumpster. It is the quality of the source that matters, not where you found it. In conclusion, changes to the article should be based on impeccably reliable sources, and such edits are far less likely to be reverted. So, there is no need to feel flummoxed. Accurately summarize reliable sources and all will be well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Good morning, is there any possibility of redirecting from an article in the English Wikipedia to an article in the Hebrew Wikipedia? In the Heb WP, it was used as {{אנ|Article name}} and the result was (אנ'). Is there a similar option in the English WP, or the redirecting is made by: [[w:he:Article name]]? Dgw (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Dorian Gray Wild:, yes, the corresponding template at en.wiki is {{ill}}. The documentation is at Help:Interlanguage links. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 05:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Tell me 3 thing about abiogensis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.105.226.220 (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

All prior posts from this IP address have been reverted as vandalism. Are you responsible for those pasts posts, or is this a shared computer? David notMD (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Abiogenesis is the process by which living organisms evolve from non-living entities, and to the non-religious is one of the potential origins of life. Life then bloomed and grew, until it developed intelligence and utilised tools to assist itself. These tools grew in complexity until a certain organism devised a system to collect all that accumulated knowledge to assist in the education of future life forms. Then, reckless organisms, seeking imbecilic endorphin rushes, set about the destruction of this informational Haven. Thankfully, there were observant bastions to protect this sublime fortress from ne'er-do-wells. Those who crossed them were brought before the most prominent of lifeforms, and ejected from the Haven in perpetuity. Thus, to concisely explain abiogenesis, consider the following; it is the process by which carbon atoms coalesced to form sentient editors, who act to ban vandals on Wikipedia. To challenge them is to court death. Further vandalism will result in anti-abiogenesis, wherein your IP turns from a participating entity on-wiki to an uncaring red box - from life itself, to nothingness. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:HOMEWORK, perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there a policy/template on listing viewers per episode of a series. I ask because for example this article List of My Hero Academia episodes includes the USA episode watching numbers and Kantō region rating details in the Summary section. My feeling is that this information is of marginal interest, and if it is to be included, it should probably be in a separate column, not in the Summary. Are there any examples where "episode watching numbers" are included in summaries? Ozflashman (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ozflashman and welcome to the Teahouse.

Since I don't have a ready answer for you, I'm going to suggest that you ask this at the WikiProject Television talk page at: WT:WikiProject Television. There you will find editors who are particularly interested in WP's coverage of television programs and they can help you determine when and where viewership statistics should be included in articles. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Will do. Ozflashman (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Please can someone tell me if the article I wrote about Blackburn Rovers' sponsor "10Bet" has been submitted for review and whether it will be published on wikipedia in the meanwhile? Currently, if I search for "10Bet" on Wikipedia it doesn't appear in the search results — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremylast77 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

No, you haven't submitted your sandbox draft for review. To do so you would add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. Before doing that, however, you need to read the guidance on conflict of interest and the mandatory requirements for declaration of paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You also ought to read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

or else your draft will be declined. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I would like to ask if it is possible to change the title of he page Observatory on Digital Communication into [Observatory on Digital Communication - OCCAM]] (slightly different from the draft: Draft:OCCAM - Observatory on Digital Communication, but equally complete. Thank you for the attention and patience. Nsevistr (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nsevistr: - that could be achieved with a page move. However, the page should only be moved with good reason. Why do you consider Observatory on Digital Communication - OCCAM] a superior title? The title should reflect the subject of the article, and what it is referred to as by reliable sources. In this case, this seems to just be "OCCAM". Why do you wish to execute the move, and do you consider your rationale to be uncontroversial? If not, a request for a move may be necessary. Please consider this before deciding on a move. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds:thank you very much, very clear. I have checked here http://esango.un.org/civilsociety/showProfileDetail.do?method=showProfileDetails&profileCode=2727 where it says that the English name is Observatory on Digital Communication and the acronym is OCCAM. I will evaluate. Thank you again.Nsevistr (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

When I look at organizations that have oft-used acronyms (FDA, FTC, NBA) the acronym is not part of the title. David notMD (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Right. We pick one title. Alternative titles like acronyms are handled in other ways. Wikipedia:Article titles#Article title format says: "It is also unnecessary to include an acronym in addition to the name in a title". OCCAM redirects to a disambiguation page where Observatory on Digital Communication is listed. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I made what I thought at the time to be small relevant updates to the Naturesave page. Having never been involved in a Wikipedia entry before I did not realise that my role as an employee precluded me from making such amends due to a conflict of interest. I am now concern that my clumsy intervention will have a negative impact on the page. Can anyone confirm whether this is the case? I would like to confirm that Naturesave has no desire to conduct inappropriate behaviour in relation to that entry. Thanks, Theroadislong and Gråbergs Gråa Sång — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Oldridge (talk • contribs) 13:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Least of your worries, as article Naturesave Insurance is now under consideration at Articles for Deletion. It's not your edits. It's the content of the article questioned as not meeting Wikipedia's definition of notability, including inadequate references. David notMD (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I have prepared a draft for a my website and sent it for review. In the meantime. I'd love to get some help on whether some of my references are alright.

They are listed as follows :

http://www.itone.lu/actualites/gyorgy-gattyan-simple-recipe

http://www.blikk.hu/sztarvilag/sztarsztorik/titkairol-vallott-a-magyar-milliardos-gattyan-gyorgy/kt0slmk

http://www.digibiz.hu/vilaghires-magyar-web-erotika/20110329

https://redhot-society.com/meeting-jasmin/

http://popcrush.com/flo-rida-hey-jasmin-video/

https://www.xbiz.com/news/221277/jasmin-to-showcase-interactive-cam-platform-at-sex-expo-ny

Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BelliniGirl (talk • contribs) 12:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

For reference this is about Draft:Jasmin (website). shoy (reactions) 13:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello again BelliniGirl and welcome to the Teahouse.

I've advised you in the past to take your lists of possible notability references to the Articles for creation help desk to get a reading on whether they establish notability. Asking if "references are alright" is not at all the same as asking if the references could serve as notability references. Despite being told several times that press releases, including press releases from organizations other then yours, do not establish notability, you still have at least one in this list. You've been at this for weeks without showing much improvement in understanding about why your draft cannot be accepted with the current set of references. I don't know if this is because we've done a poor job of explaining notability requirements to you or if you are simply motivated to keep trying in hopes of finding some editors with a different view of those requirements. There's also confusion because you and your colleagues have told us livejasmin.com and jasmin.com are supposed to be separate, yet you are using an article about livejasmin.com to support an article about jasmin.com. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)