User talk:Fuhghettaboutit/Teahouse posts

looked at so far :
 * Archive 1088
 * |
 * |
 * |
 * |
 * |
 * |
 * |
 * |

Creating an article

 * Hi . The test is simple but the devil's in the details.
 * See generally Help:Your first article. Then:
 * compile a list of reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail (think at least two to three paragraphs dedicated to the topic [one proviso – for a restaurant, that would have to be about its history, founding, background, etc. – matters on which an article could be based; not just different reviews of their food]), to see whether it is actually notable, as we use that concept here; the existence of those sources is what determines whether a topic is generally notability;
 * however, please be sure you unpack that standard, with its four mentioned parts, and thus look for the right types of sources and depth of treatment – you might find Common sourcing mistakes (notability) of assistance with that;
 * if you can't make that list with at least three entries, with different content from one another, write nothing – no article is seemingly possible on the restaurant at this time, because it hasn't been the subject of sufficient independent publication by the wider world – and you will be wasting your time; no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability;
 * if you can, visit the Article wizard and follow the prompts to create a draft;
 * write only what the sources you've compiled first verify (without copying the words used); and
 * cite those verifying sources as you write, which will also demonstrate the topic's notability.
 * Best regards--


 * Hi . The test is simple but the devil's in the details.
 * See generally Help:Your first article. Then:
 * compile a list of reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail (think at least two to three paragraphs dedicated to the topic [one proviso – for a restaurant, that would have to be about its history, founding, background, etc. – matters on which an article could be based; not just different reviews of their food]), to see whether it is actually notable, as we use that concept here; the existence of those sources is what determines whether a topic is generally notability;
 * however, please be sure you unpack that standard, with its four mentioned parts, and thus look for the right types of sources and depth of treatment – you might find Common sourcing mistakes (notability) of assistance with that;
 * if you can't make that list with at least three entries, with different content from one another, write nothing – no article is seemingly possible on the restaurant at this time, because it hasn't been the subject of sufficient independent publication by the wider world – and you will be wasting your time; no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability;
 * if you can, visit the Article wizard and follow the prompts to create a draft;
 * write only what the sources you've compiled first verify (without copying the words used); and
 * cite those verifying sources as you write, which will also demonstrate the topic's notability.
 * Best regards--

General advice as to locating suitable images & copyright (hidden)

 * Hi . This is sort of hard to answer; there's so much involved given the breadth of your questions. Here's a bunch of point that I hope help. I am going to collapse this, as too intrusively large.


 * For clarification purposes: not all free content images are in the public domain – a large portion are under a suitably free and and compatible copyright license;
 * But when you do find such images, they are usually hosted at the Wikimedia Commons – which allows their use at all Wikimedia projects, rather than just here. Images at the Commons can be displayed here natively – so that's where you should: i) search for existing, and ii) upload – such suitably licensed and public domain images;
 * More rarely, we allow the use of non-free copyrighted images, including for logos, under fair use. they must, however meet the non-free content criteria. See Non-free content;
 * Since you specifically asked about logos, some are eligible for upload to the Wikimedia Commons as public domain material because they only consist of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes, and thus are not eligible for copyright protection. See, e.g., pd-textlogo.
 * Please note one significant exception to the bullet point above: some such images may still be subject to copyright protection in their home country, if from a country (such as England) that recognizes the sweat of the brow doctrine, and thus must be uploaded to Wikipedia for use here, rather than to the Commons. See, e.g., PD-ineligible-USonly;
 * You can use an advanced Google Images search to try to locate suitably-free images. Once at Google Images, go to Settings → Advanced search → usage rights: → Creative Commons licenses → once a specific image is invoked → License details → compare against the list here ;
 * Flickr is also a ripe place to search for free images, but please be aware of "license laundering".
 * You might try the "FIST", Free Image Search Tool;
 * Please note that the starting point for a random image found on the internet is: it is assumed to be fully non-free copyrighted (and there is no need for an image to display © or similar). For free status, we look for affirmative and verifiable evidence of a free copyright status. This excludes a vast cross section of images you find on the Internet, and through a plain old Google images or other non-targeted search;
 * So, you must look for an affirmative release by an image's owner (e.g., the owner so states in relation to the image);
 * However, some images pass into the public domain because of some situational status, such as that the image was not subject to copyright in the first place (e.g., an image created by a U.S. federal employee during the scope of his or her duties), or because of timing, coupled with publication status—which can be summarized as the image being:
 * Created/photographed prior to 1900 (whether published or not) = PD.
 * Published before 1925 = PD — ''but only in the U.S. Wikimedia Commons images must be suitably-free also in the country of origin, so for foreign images, you must check its source country's copyright rules, and if not PD there, it can be uploaded to Wikipedia, but not to the Commons.
 * Published after 1925 and up to 1977 without a copyright symbol = PD
 * Published between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright symbol and not registered since = PD
 * Published from 1925 to 1963 with a copyright symbol and copyright not renewed = PD
 * Unpublished and created/taken before 1925 = PD 70 years after author's death (so the author's identity must be known).
 * Unpublished and created/taken after 1925 = too complicated to get into. See more here


 * Best regards--


 * Hi . This is sort of hard to answer; there's so much involved given the breadth of your questions. Here's a bunch of point that I hope help. I am going to collapse this, as too intrusively large.


 * For clarification purposes: not all free content images are in the public domain – a large portion are under a suitably free and and compatible copyright license;
 * But when you do find such images, they are usually hosted at the Wikimedia Commons – which allows their use at all Wikimedia projects, rather than just here. Images at the Commons can be displayed here natively – so that's where you should: i) search for existing, and ii) upload – such suitably licensed and public domain images;
 * More rarely, we allow the use of non-free copyrighted images, including for logos, under fair use. they must, however meet the non-free content criteria. See Non-free content;
 * Since you specifically asked about logos, some are eligible for upload to the Wikimedia Commons as public domain material because they only consist of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes, and thus are not eligible for copyright protection. See, e.g., pd-textlogo.
 * Please note one significant exception to the bullet point above: some such images may still be subject to copyright protection in their home country, if from a country (such as England) that recognizes the sweat of the brow doctrine, and thus must be uploaded to Wikipedia for use here, rather than to the Commons. See, e.g., PD-ineligible-USonly;
 * You can use an advanced Google Images search to try to locate suitably-free images. Once at Google Images, go to Settings → Advanced search → usage rights: → Creative Commons licenses → once a specific image is invoked → License details → compare against the list here ;
 * Flickr is also a ripe place to search for free images, but please be aware of "license laundering".
 * You might try the "FIST", Free Image Search Tool;
 * Please note that the starting point for a random image found on the internet is: it is assumed to be fully non-free copyrighted (and there is no need for an image to display © or similar). For free status, we look for affirmative and verifiable evidence of a free copyright status. This excludes a vast cross section of images you find on the Internet, and through a plain old Google images or other non-targeted search;
 * So, you must look for an affirmative release by an image's owner (e.g., the owner so states in relation to the image);
 * However, some images pass into the public domain because of some situational status, such as that the image was not subject to copyright in the first place (e.g., an image created by a U.S. federal employee during the scope of his or her duties), or because of timing, coupled with publication status—which can be summarized as the image being:
 * Created/photographed prior to 1900 (whether published or not) = PD.
 * Published before 1925 = PD — ''but only in the U.S. Wikimedia Commons images must be suitably-free also in the country of origin, so for foreign images, you must check its source country's copyright rules, and if not PD there, it can be uploaded to Wikipedia, but not to the Commons.
 * Published after 1925 and up to 1977 without a copyright symbol = PD
 * Published between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright symbol and not registered since = PD
 * Published from 1925 to 1963 with a copyright symbol and copyright not renewed = PD
 * Unpublished and created/taken before 1925 = PD 70 years after author's death (so the author's identity must be known).
 * Unpublished and created/taken after 1925 = too complicated to get into. See more here


 * Best regards--

How to change the size of an image

 * Hi HalfdanRagnarsson. I have modified the image markup you posted in a common manner for how we often use them in articles, which you'll see, provides a smaller default size; and also posted a second use of the same image with a forced smaller display. Click edit on this thread to see the code I used for each. For further help, please see Help:Pictures, as well as the many pages linked through Images. Best regards--


 * Hi HalfdanRagnarsson. I have modified the image markup you posted in a common manner for how we often use them in articles, which you'll see, provides a smaller default size; and also posted a second use of the same image with a forced smaller display. Click edit on this thread to see the code I used for each. For further help, please see Help:Pictures, as well as the many pages linked through Images. Best regards--

Excerpted ad-speak; copyvio noted in log; always by an insider, must comply with paid

 * Hi . I took a look at the draft, and, noting its extreme promotional language —

A neutral encyclopedia article would never say things, for example, like:
 * "...an innovation-driven client-centric organization..."
 * or
 * "...is a proactive and committed one stop solution delivering Influencer marketing, Digital Marketing, and Public Relation inbound marketing agency..." )


 * as well as other hallmarks of copying from involved primary sources, I have now noted in the logs for the deleted page that it was a copyright violation of [at least] these sources. I will post a note about this on your talk page. If any article is possible on this subject, it must be written in your own words, and in neutral language. Please note that this draft cannot be undeleted because of the copying issue. Also, because proposed articles like this are almost never posted except by insiders, please comply with our mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements before editing further. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g., by posting to your user page the following: . Also, if any new draft is created by you, please post a filled-out {{subst:connected contributor (paid)}} template to its talk page. Regards--


 * Hi . I took a look at the draft, and, noting its extreme promotional language —

A neutral encyclopedia article would never say things, for example, like:
 * "...an innovation-driven client-centric organization..."
 * or
 * "...is a proactive and committed one stop solution delivering Influencer marketing, Digital Marketing, and Public Relation inbound marketing agency..." )


 * as well as other hallmarks of copying from involved primary sources, I have now noted in the logs for the deleted page that it was a copyright violation of [at least] these sources. I will post a note about this on your talk page. If any article is possible on this subject, it must be written in your own words, and in neutral language. Please note that this draft cannot be undeleted because of the copying issue. Also, because proposed articles like this are almost never posted except by insiders, please comply with our mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements before editing further. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g., by posting to your user page the following: . Also, if any new draft is created by you, please post a filled-out {{subst:connected contributor (paid)}} template to its talk page. Regards--

General advice to comport oneself to avoid problems
Additionally – and much of the following is my general advice for how to comport yourself to avoid problems and get the result you actually want without knowing the specifics, so I don't know if the following applies to you – but please be aware of WP:BOOMERANG and please note Don't template the regulars. If you are, for example, in a seeming interaction that is heading towards an edit war with a highly experienced user (admin or otherwise), I strongly recommend discussing the issue at their talk page (calmly and as neutrally as possible) tailored to the specifics. Focus on the content issue, not what you think of them. Also, cite policy/guideline that supports what you are there about, and be sure it's them and not you. It usually takes two to edit war (if you are the sole person reverting multiple experienced others, you probably need to re-think your position). Likewise, it often takes two people reverting multiple times for one of them to cross the line and breach the three revert rule. Please also note the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Something that can be described as "calm discussion" where you "raise an issue" is usually superior to something one would describe as "warning". Best regards--

Additionally – and much of the following is my general advice for how to comport yourself to avoid problems and get the result you actually want without knowing the specifics, so I don't know if the following applies to you – but please be aware of WP:BOOMERANG and please note Don't template the regulars. If you are, for example, in a seeming interaction that is heading towards an edit war with a highly experienced user (admin or otherwise), I strongly recommend discussing the issue at their talk page (calmly and as neutrally as possible) tailored to the specifics. Focus on the content issue, not what you think of them. Also, cite policy/guideline that supports what you are there about, and be sure it's them and not you. It usually takes two to edit war (if you are the sole person reverting multiple experienced others, you probably need to re-think your position). Likewise, it often takes two people reverting multiple times for one of them to cross the line and breach the three revert rule. Please also note the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Something that can be described as "calm discussion" where you "raise an issue" is usually superior to something one would describe as "warning". Best regards--

User asks about propriety of removal of content cited to [unreliable] user-generated source

 * Hi . ___, as a hosting service through which any random person can post content (and here, apparently exactly that: some random person's posting, rather than a known subject matter expert using the _____ service) is an improper source – see Reliable sources (shortcuts: WP:USERGENERATED; WP:UGC). I suggest specifically linking to that section of policy in the edit summary upon any edit addressing the issue, and that you look for and, if possible, replace it with a better source, rather than simply removing it. Best regards--


 * Hi . ___, as a hosting service through which any random person can post content (and here, apparently exactly that: some random person's posting, rather than a known subject matter expert using the _____ service) is an improper source – see Reliable sources (shortcuts: WP:USERGENERATED; WP:UGC). I suggest specifically linking to that section of policy in the edit summary upon any edit addressing the issue, and that you look for and, if possible, replace it with a better source, rather than simply removing it. Best regards--

Administrator status implicates experience
An administrator is not a higher level user —they only have access to higher level tools. They can absolutely be warned, blocked, or banned. However, the fact they are an administrator (but for a very few users who got their access in the very, very earliest days of Wikipedia) always means they are highly experienced; went through a community process to request the access to the tools that that would not have succeeded if they hadn't shown by their edits they seemed like a person who was clueful and to be trusted and who had a good working knowledge of policy and guideline. What that translates to is that it is not very common that administrators need to be warned for their edits, or blocked or even banned, but it certainly happens.

An administrator is not a higher level user —they only have access to higher level tools. They can absolutely be warned, blocked, or banned. However, the fact they are an administrator (but for a very few users who got their access in the very, very earliest days of Wikipedia) always means they are highly experienced; went through a community process to request the access to the tools that that would not have succeeded if they hadn't shown by their edits they seemed like a person who was clueful and to be trusted and who had a good working knowledge of policy and guideline. What that translates to is that it is not very common that administrators need to be warned for their edits, or blocked or even banned, but it certainly happens.

Punctuation goes after footnotes; dummy footnote

 * Hi . After, like this.. For the relevant style guideline, see Manual of Style – where the following exception to the general rule is provided: "Ref tags are placed before dashes, not after. Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis."--


 * Hi . After, like this.. For the relevant style guideline, see Manual of Style – where the following exception to the general rule is provided: "Ref tags are placed before dashes, not after. Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis."--

Too tainted to retain; intertwined copyvios and CLOP

 * Hi . I have deleted the draft as a blatant copyright violation. I was initially going to attempt to remove each infringement with a note, and leave the draft up, as pared down to next to nothing with the decline in place, but it quickly became clear that it was impossible–your direct copying and [far too] close parphrasing from multiple sources, as intertwined and existing from first edit forward, made it unsalvageably tainted. I will leave a note about this on your talk page. Best regards--


 * Hi . I have deleted the draft as a blatant copyright violation. I was initially going to attempt to remove each infringement with a note, and leave the draft up, as pared down to next to nothing with the decline in place, but it quickly became clear that it was impossible–your direct copying and [far too] close parphrasing from multiple sources, as intertwined and existing from first edit forward, made it unsalvageably tainted. I will leave a note about this on your talk page. Best regards--

Exercising editorial judgment / editorial discretion
Hi. Anything that appear to be evaluation in Wikipedia's voice should be avoided (e.g., as smacking of original research). On the other hand, we absolutely must exercise editorial judgment when writing articles, as to what to include and what not to include—which is an integral part of writing and is not original research. See, e.g., Editorial discretion. Now, this strikes me as ambiguously somewhere betwixt and between. We do include such lists depending on the topic, and exercise editorial discretion when composing them, but calling them " significant works" (without a citation) is what bothers me; the use of that headline here automatically makes me think "according to whom?". Per Manual of Style/Lists of works and Manual of Style/Layout and by analogy WikiProject Bibliographies and last but not least, looking at a few Featured articles, I recommend changing the headline to "Selected works" or "List of selected works", à la Lat (cartoonist) among a number of other examples I found. Best regards--

Hi. Anything that appear to be evaluation in Wikipedia's voice should be avoided (e.g., as smacking of original research). On the other hand, we absolutely must exercise editorial judgment when writing articles, as to what to include and what not to include—which is an integral part of writing and is not original research. See, e.g., Editorial discretion. Now, this strikes me as ambiguously somewhere betwixt and between. We do include such lists depending on the topic, and exercise editorial discretion when composing them, but calling them " significant works" (without a citation) is what bothers me; the use of that headline here automatically makes me think "according to whom?". Per Manual of Style/Lists of works and Manual of Style/Layout and by analogy WikiProject Bibliographies and last but not least, looking at a few Featured articles, I recommend changing the headline to "Selected works" or "List of selected works", à la Lat (cartoonist) among a number of other examples I found. Best regards--

Userboxes
Hi. If it might be useful, one common way organize your userboxes, once you have selected them, is to use the template pair: Userboxtop and Userboxbottom, such as in this example, taken from Userboxes:


 * Best regards--

Hi. If it might be useful, one common way organize your userboxes, once you have selected them, is to use the template pair: Userboxtop and Userboxbottom, such as in this example, taken from Userboxes:


 * Best regards--

Right wing winging; supposed leftist extreme bias

 * A major problem in this arena is that while there's no doubt that biased left and biased right sources exists, the two "sides" are not at all equal. That is, at least in the U.S., there's a yellow journalism, conspiracy-theory-pushing, any-fact-that-doesnt-support-our-agenda-is-not-a-fact machine on the right, grown very fat over the last few years (though started quite a long time ago). They have grown slick and now present as a cross-reinforcing cadre of organizations masquerading as legitimate news sources that mix truth and fiction as a tactic ala the best of liars. Unfortunately, they have successfully infiltrated journalism to the point where every source that reports actual facts—empirically verifiable reality—that happens to be in an area in which the right's machine has taken an interest and pushed some up-is-down perversion of reality, is smeared as leftist. Meanwhile, the number of people who have the ability to winnow out truth from fiction for themselves from source material has always been a minority. With that unequal baseline, to far too many the two "sides" just appear as equal, disputing authorities. It doesn't help at all that even some of the most stalwart sources of real journalism have been co-opted to some extent – for example reporting on the existence of "alternative facts" alongside reality, even when discounting the lies, when they should not be giving any lip service. Similarly, real journalists fall into the trap of thinking being unbiased is to always give the lunatic fringe a seat at the table, even if it's a small one, e.g., even though approximately 100% of scientists agree we live in a heliocentric universe, every time that topic somehow comes up directly, the unbiased thing to do is plant a flat earth creationist at the table with the adults to give the other side. So, I absolutely agree with your conclusion, person editing from ...87BC, but since the sides are so weighted in the other direction from your post, I cannot help but wonder if you're mistaking our reportage of facts, including the existence and stance of lies masquerading as fact as pushed by those with a political agenda, as being a left bias, or whether you genuinely have come across the left bias your post regards. If you have, post to the talk page of the article, but back up any issue or change you want with a survey of proper sources.--


 * A major problem in this arena is that while there's no doubt that biased left and biased right sources exists, the two "sides" are not at all equal. That is, at least in the U.S., there's a yellow journalism, conspiracy-theory-pushing, any-fact-that-doesnt-support-our-agenda-is-not-a-fact machine on the right, grown very fat over the last few years (though started quite a long time ago). They have grown slick and now present as a cross-reinforcing cadre of organizations masquerading as legitimate news sources that mix truth and fiction as a tactic ala the best of liars. Unfortunately, they have successfully infiltrated journalism to the point where every source that reports actual facts—empirically verifiable reality—that happens to be in an area in which the right's machine has taken an interest and pushed some up-is-down perversion of reality, is smeared as leftist. Meanwhile, the number of people who have the ability to winnow out truth from fiction for themselves from source material has always been a minority. With that unequal baseline, to far too many the two "sides" just appear as equal, disputing authorities. It doesn't help at all that even some of the most stalwart sources of real journalism have been co-opted to some extent – for example reporting on the existence of "alternative facts" alongside reality, even when discounting the lies, when they should not be giving any lip service. Similarly, real journalists fall into the trap of thinking being unbiased is to always give the lunatic fringe a seat at the table, even if it's a small one, e.g., even though approximately 100% of scientists agree we live in a heliocentric universe, every time that topic somehow comes up directly, the unbiased thing to do is plant a flat earth creationist at the table with the adults to give the other side. So, I absolutely agree with your conclusion, person editing from ...87BC, but since the sides are so weighted in the other direction from your post, I cannot help but wonder if you're mistaking our reportage of facts, including the existence and stance of lies masquerading as fact as pushed by those with a political agenda, as being a left bias, or whether you genuinely have come across the left bias your post regards. If you have, post to the talk page of the article, but back up any issue or change you want with a survey of proper sources.--