Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 873

Archive 870

Archive 871

Archive 872

Archive 873

Archive 874

Archive 875

→

Archive 880

‎Immediate Closure of an RfC (without time for "C's" to be made)

Re: Immediate Closure of an RfC (without time for "C's" to be made). The Teahouse is primarily where new or newish editors can come to ask general questions about editing. This discussion has moved way beyond that point and should be continued at another more appropriate noticeboard or a relevant talk page.

An RfC (Request for Comments) that I posted was closed (initially) within 90 minutes of being posted - perhaps even faster. The reason provided for closure was that the RfC did not utilize the appropriate template and/or formatting. It makes perfect sense that this should be pointed out to me as a new editor. If I was an editor with more knowledge I may have gone to the trouble to correct the error and insert the "rfc template" for the post in order to help the proposer (me in this case). But that editor did not and instead simply closed the discussion off, immediately. Next other editors (fewer than 4) came back in and even though the discussion closure instructions said to not to make any additional updates, more than one editor changed the reason for closure and commented WP:POINT(meaning that I was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point). Another editor also suggested that I was violating WP:SNOW (that my request for comments didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of either being answered or more likely leading to the outcome that I was proposing). (This last Wikipedia clause WP:SNOW in general seems rather dubious, as it presumes to know what Wikipedants and/or Wikipedia editors all seem to think in advance of any kind of discussion.) As the RfC was now closed, within minutes, I thought that it best not to simply revert and to sleep on it. The next day, today, I decided that what I should do is address the initial concern (that I did not use the template) and then fill out my arguments and my supporting documentation a bit. I also directly addressed the other suggested Wikipedia violations in my "Updated RfC". Unfortunately I feel as though a few editors essentially are trying to bully me to "sit down and be quiet" as within minutes, again, an editor had effectively closed the discussion. This time an editor came along and disregarded the Discussion Suggestions, deleted the RfC template and removed the RfC ID that the bot put in place. The following messages, some might characterize one of them as a threat, were left on my talk page: 1. Please read wp:tenditious, having had an RFC closed and then (virtually straight away) reopening the same one differently worded is not going to end well. 2. You might also want to read wp:point, please stop this now. 3. I have re-closed that section on WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Per the previous warning by UserX, I'm telling you now that if you continue disrupting that page, you will be blocked. My question is how should one go about having a reasonable RfC (without seeming to be edit-warring or disruptive) so that the darn thing will stay open long enough for people to weigh in. Does it make sense to make an Administrative Complaint about the editors involved as their behavior clearly did not assume positive intent and completely disregarded the suggestions for the discussions in the second RfC as well as the instructioin not to edit post close for the first page. To judge for yourself regarding these RfC's please see this page. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard New York Times RfC and Updated RfC: New York Times Wcmcdade (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC) That was an obviously vexatious RFC; we are not going to deprecate using the New York Times as a source. Please don't reopen it yet again; as has already been explained to you, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is grounds for blocking. ‑ Iridescent 21:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Please consider that by your statement that the NYT RfC was vexatious, we would also consider the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence as being equally so. You also seem to speak for a group when you say that, "we are not going to deprecate using the New York Times as a source." May I ask who the group is that you are speaking for? Otherwise your comment seems to lack WP:AGF.Wcmcdade (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Oh, knock it off. You have your answer already, and this is not the Magna Carta. Bradv🍁 22:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) @Wcmcdade: My advice is to wait for the current RfC to conclude, and then start a conversation at WP:RSN and see if other editors agree with you that this RfC is worth having as a community. And of course, you should thoroughly read the advice left for you at WP:RSN and on your talk page. Bradv🍁 21:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC) So the RfC has already concluded even though it does not appear as such. That's how "tricky" folks are being. By removing the RfC ID, it is no longer listed for feedback and is minimized on the page. So the chances of anyone actually leaving a comment are slim to none. Also, I thoroughly read the advice left. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcmcdade (talk • contribs) 21:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC) I meant the current RfC about the Daily Mail, which prompted this. Wait for it to conclude. Bradv🍁 21:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC) I see. Another editor also suggested that my RfC was about the Daily Mail. This is NOT about the Daily Mail. While that RfC did lead me to consider and ponder the nature of RS and periodicals, my RfC that was arbitrarily snuffed out, was only about the NYT. So I do not plan to wait for that discussion to close. I will pursue within the rules and spirit of the rules of Wikipedia the fairness of how my RfC's have been treated and edited - which to me so far seems rather shameful. Wcmcdade (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC) @Wcmcdade: This discussion has long past moved in a direction which is not really suitable for the Teahouse. There are other noticeboards which are more appropriate for this type of thing. WP:FORUMSHOP is not helpful in resolving things such as this and actually is often seen as being disruptive, tendentious or a bit of both. Perhaps you should take this to WP:RSN as suggested above since that's where disagreements over reliable sources are often resolved. If you try to continue discussing this here, another host is likely going to collapse this discussion as being off-topic. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC) While Marchjuly's assessment above (that the whole thread is getting derailed fast) is probably correct, I still think the correct answer has not been given yet. @Wcmcdade: You should not have reopened an RfC immediately after its closure, even if you think the closure was premature or incorrect. Instead, if you believe the closure was incorrect, you should ask for it to be reviewed as appropriate, i.e. by contacting the closing editor first and by escalating to WP:AN second per Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_a_closing. (FWIW I strongly recommend you do not pursue this.) TigraanClick here to contact me 14:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC) Thank you for this direction. To be clear, instead of reverting any changes on the first RfC, I assumed positive intent and rewrote and utilized the template for the RfC. In my view I was addressing the concern that the initial editor had in closing it. And while I didn't think that it deserved closure, I was in agreement and could see that I had not used the template requested. So in opening an "Updated RfC", I thought that I had addressed the initial concern which was the template and the formatting. Secondly, I did not reach out to the additional editors (only the first editor) who closed as I felt that they'd really sort of broken the rules by editing the RfC after it had been closed. Since they'd kind of blatantly broken the rules, I didn't see a reason to reach out to them. It seemed as though they were not interested in conversation. Afterasll on an RfC (it's not a published article afterall) they could have simply had conversation with me in the discussion section. Perhaps next time I will reach out to more editors directly. Lastly, thank you for the advice on going to WP:AN that's what I will pursue next. Much appreciated.Wcmcdade (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC) Hi Wcmcdade, and welcome to the Teahouse! It's important to understand that you're not always going to get what you want. For example, in October, I started an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Interviews that faced strong opposition, and I withdrew it when it was clear that my opinion was different from the community consensus. Since Wikipedia is a community effort, we should respect this consensus even if we personally have different perspectives, because that's how the project as a whole moves forward. If you have ever participated in any type of group project in a school, company, or some other organization, the same principles of teamwork apply for editing on Wikipedia as well. Since the reliable sources noticeboard is a high-traffic page, discussions tend to be closed early when it is clear that the proposal would not gain community consensus. For example, earlier this year, there were two RfCs on the reliability of Fox News that were closed without extended discussion. The first one was withdrawn by the proposer, and the second one was closed by another editor. This is a common practice at WP:RSN, and you aren't being singled out for your opinion. I agree with Tigraan in that taking this issue to the administrator noticeboard would be highly inadvisable. When I clarified the RfC instructions, I wanted to give you the right answer so you would be better informed of Wikipedia's procedures. However, just because a course of action is available to an editor doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea to take that action. Since The New York Times has a long list of awards, including more Pulitzer Prizes than any other publication, almost all editors on Wikipedia would oppose deprecating it as a source. This is more of a common sense judgment than anything else. If other editors agreed with your position, someone else would have already challenged the closure. Hopefully, this clears up some of the confusion you may have regarding Wikipedia's practices. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to ask. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 23:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC) Thank you for further clarification. I don’t want to discuss the NYT here, only the way in which an RfC is created on RSN and then the validity of the speed and reasons for closure. So you may understand, I’m deeply concerned about what I perceive to be as a sort of “shouting down” without critical analysis. It seems to me that an RfC whether about Fox News or the Encylopedia Britanica for an RSN would deserve some critical thought and expression. While I do not edit often, I probably have a few dozen edits under my belt and I fully understand that an editor does not always “get his way”. I think that my larger concern here is that what happened to my RfC, from my perspective, amounted to a new kid walking up to an established clique. The new kid looked around, thought about something they thought may have value and proposed a question. But instead of respecting the question or request in this case and simply allowing the idea to sit out there a while for people to ponder, think about it, intelligently respond with facts, and then perhaps vote on it. The observation/question was effectively laughed off and, oddly, squashed by a tiny group of editors (fewer than 10, perhaps fewer than 6 or 7) with extremely little critical thought or argument regarding the topic. Now for our beloved, shared Wiki, to me, this seems like unhealthy behavior. In fact, if I were a conservative journalist observing this, I might use this as an example of an elite, few, left-wing Wikipedia editors, at it again, demanding that their community tow the liberal line, or else. So it does not bode well IMHO, that editors almost appear afraid to discuss the possibility that the “institutional truth” might not actually be true. It kind of almost feels like when a certain President said he was running for office. You know, laugh him off. That’s ridiculous people. And then...look and see what happens when you DON’T take other people’s opinions seriously.Wcmcdade (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Twinkle

To revert a vandalism I always undo that version of edit and warm the user by Twinkle but can Twinkle be used to revert an edit?Denim11 (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Denim11: Not directly, as the act of undoing is made by the standard "undo" button. However, the Twinkle panel (top right in desktop view, just left of the search bar) gives you quick access to the last diff of the the page ("last"), which is quicker than going through the history etc. From one revision, it also has some options ("since" [all diffs from one user], "since mine" [what it says], etc.). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tigraan: but it is not revering the previous edit but I see in many user's contributions that they have reverted one or more edits by Twinkle.Denim11 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Denim11: Twinkle shows a panel above the latest diff of a page, with three options: revert (AGF), revert, and revert (VANDAL). Clicking one of those sends you to a confirmation popup. If you confirm, it reverts and opens the talk page of the editor you reverted in another tab. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Have you read WP:Twinkle/doc#Restore and rollback? - David Biddulph (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: and @A lad insane: I have read that and there it was told that if you open the latest diff of the page there are three rollback options but I opened the latest diff of the page but there wasn't any of these revert options.Denim11 (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC) Many thanks A lad insane I have found it.Denim11 (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Asking for a code

Can somebody give me the code which would make a floating funny cartoon picture on my user page. I have a floating cup of tea but i don't want something realistic to be floating there instead a clumsy cartoon or something. HardSunBadMoon (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Go to this, click edit, copy the text, DO NOT EDIT IT, create a new page titled something like User:HardSunBadMoon/floater, paste the text you copied from the other one, and edit the file name to whatever you want. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I already have that cup of tea on my user page.HardSunBadMoon (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@HardSunBadMoon:Take the filename and replace it. For example, this. The difference is that I changed the file name. Feel free to use mine if you wish. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thats great. Thanks a lot. Can you give me some more file names in your next comment so that i can have many choices?

HardSunBadMoon (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a specific image, but follow this link and search for images you would like to use. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 05:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

About Creating Sandbox

I have seen an article which is in horribly bad condition. I think i can improve that article to a great extent but the problem is that a whole reconstruction would be needed and i can't do that much large edits on an active page. Someone recommended me to use sandbox for this purpose . So can you tell me the step by step process of doing this. I can for sure help that B class page attain GA status.HardSunBadMoon (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the preferred method, if the article already exists, is to make edits directly to the article. You can do this a section at a time, and put a Template:Under construction notice on the page so that other editors know that you are working on it. Dbfirs 18:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Some guys on the page told me to make a my own version of the page and try to gain a consensus for it as they don't have full faith in my skill as im new.HardSunBadMoon (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Please don't do the full rewrite of Grateful Dead that you discussed here, but take the good advice you were given in that section. The article is certainly not in a "horribly bad condition", but there is of course room for improvement. You should have a red link called "sandbox" showing at the top of every page when you are logged in - click that, and it will take you to User:HardSunBadMoon/sandbox. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 19:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I have copied sections of articles into my Sandbox, worked there, made sure all the refs were in order, then pasted the section into the article as a replacement. If I felt that my changes were in any way controversial I also started a discussion at the Talk page of the article. I can see that you have already done the latter, but with wording that pretty much says "Hands off while I fix this." Not going to happen. This article has been around a long time, and there are a lot of avid Deadhead editors who will quickly reject anything you add or subtract that is not supported by good references. David notMD (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You appeared o the talk page of Grateful Dead, and instead of asking for advice or expressing an opinion, you immediately started giving orders. Predictably, this was not well received. Maproom (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

How to post and also improve the article?

How to post the article and also improve the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarvasuddi Bandi Raju (talk • contribs) 09:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sarvasuddi Bandi Raju and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you have submitted your draft for review; that is exactly what you should do, and you will just need to wait for it to be reviewed. This will take some time as there are thousands of draft waiting for review by volunteer editors, so you will need to be patient. I will say, however, I'm not sure it will be accepted. Wikipedia is not a form of social media for people to tell the world about themselves or their career; this is an encyclopedia that is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that are notable as defined by Wikipedia. There is a policy on autobiographies that you may want to read in the meantime; you may also want to read this page that describes how a Wikipedia article may not actually be desirable for people. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

How to start a Guest Post in Wiki Pedia as a biggner

How to start a Guest Post in Wiki Pedia as a biggner when some body visit to the Wiipedia and make an individual account then where he will post a guest posts on certain topics or interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuj Kumar Kashyap (talk • contribs) 14:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Anuj Kumar Kashyap, we are an encyclopedia and we don't host random guest posts/musings/essays on any topic. You may choose to create a new article after reading WP:YFA.

On a sidenote, it looks very unlikely that you are here for any noble purpose and further spamming will lead to an indefinite block, as warned on your talk-page. ∯WBG^converse 15:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)